MM 

I 


V  I    V,      ■ 


IMHV   ■     ■ 


I  'J  -}     — 


■i 


HI 

I 


— i 

I  Hi 


w 

^H  El 

*^^^H.  .v  Hill 


/.  /  O ,  O^ 


&* 


oi  tfw  ®fewlo^%  g 


e*h 


PRINCETON,  N.  J. 


% 


% 


Division 
Section  ■■ 


..! 


The 

Birth  and  Infancy 


OF 


Jesus  Christ 


ACCORDING   TO    THE 
GOSPEL  NARRATIVES 


BY  THE        v^ 

REV.  LOUIS  MATTHEWS  SWEET,  M.  A. 


WITH  AN  INTRODUCTION   BY 

James  Stevenson  Riggs,  D.  D., 

Professor  of  New   Testament   Literature   in   the 
Auburn   Theological  Seminary. 


PHILADELPHIA 

THE     WESTMINSTER    PRESS 

1906 


Copyright  1906,  by  Thb  Trusthes  of  the  Presbyterian  Board  of 
Publication  and  Sabbath-School  Work 


Published  November,  iqob 


5tye  5f  am* 

ifyirlf  ia  txbavt  every  2fam* 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 


PAGE 

Preface vii-ix 


Introduction — The  Rev.  James  S.  Riggs,  D.D.  .    .   .       xi-xiii 

Chapter  I 
Statement  of  the  Problem, 1-18 

Chapter  II 
Influence  of  the  Old  Testament  Prophecies  in  the 

Formation  of  the  Infancy  Story J9~54 

Chapter  III 
The  Theory  of  Late  Jewish-Christian  Interpolation      55-85 

Chapter  IV 
The  Theory  of  Late  Composite  Origin 85-101 

Chapter  V 
The  Theory  of  Early  Mytho-Theological  Origin  .    .  102-142 

Chapter  VI 
The  Theory  of  Heathen  Influence 143-192 

Chapter  VII 

The  Exegetical  Construction  of  the  Sections  .    .   .  193-238 

v 


VI  CONTENTS 

Chapter  VIII 

PAGE 

The  Uniqueness  of  Christ  in  Its  Bearing  upon  the 

Question  of  His  Birth 239-266 

Chapter  IX 
The  Doctrinal  Construction  of  the  Historic  Fact  .  267-286 


AUTHOR'S  NOTES 


PAGE 


Note  A. — Historical  Review  of  the  Discussion  .   .   .287-311 

Note  B. — The  Origin  and  Publication  of  the  Infancy 

Narratives — A  Comparative  Study 312-332 

NoteC. — A  Summary  and  Estimate  of  Dr.  Ramsay's 
Argument  .  .  ,  with  Some  Remarks  on  the 
Census  Question 333-343 

Note  D. — Christ's  Birth  and  the  Messianic  Hope   .  344-348 

Note  E. — The  Apostles'  Creed 349-353 

Note  F. — Bibliography 354-357 

Index 359-365 


PREFACE 


The  Gospel  narratives  of  the  Infancy  and  Youth  of 
Jesus  have  always  been  dear  to  the  heart  of  the  church. 
No  portion  of  the  New  Testament  has  been  more  influ- 
ential in  arousing  those  feelings  of  tenderness  for  child- 
hood and  respect  for  womanhood  which  are  distinctively 
Christian.  No  portion  of  the  New  Testament  has  done 
more  to  mitigate  the  savagery  of  human  nature  and  to 
hasten  the  day  of  universal  peace  than  the  narratives  in 
which  is  enshrined  the  Christmas  message,  "  Glory  to  God 
in  the  highest,  and  on  earth  peace,  good  will  toward  men." 
No  portion  of  Scripture  has  contributed  more  to  the 
maintenance  of  a  complete  and  adequate  Christology  in 
the  faith  of  the  Church. 

These  narratives  have  in  the  past  ten  or  twelve  years 
become  the  storm  center  of  critical  controversy.  The 
acrimonious  discussions  in  Germany  concerning  credal 
obligations  have  issued  in  a  critical  investigation  of  the 
Infancy  stories.  The  general  outcome,  so  far  as  Germany 
is  concerned,  has  been  distinctly  unfavorable. 

The  preliminary  sections  of  Matthew  and  Luke  have 
been  practically  thrown  out  of  court  as  worthless.  The 
general  attitude  of  the  European  mind  may  be  seen  in 
Harnack,1  and  Colain,  who  does  not  even  discuss  the 
virgin  birth.2 

It  is  safe  to  predict  a  reaction  from  this  extreme  attitude. 

1  History  of  Dogma,  pp.  100-105,  and  What  Is  Christianity ■?  p.  33. 

2  See  Lobstein,  p.  135. 


viil  PREFACE 

Indeed,  among  English  thinkers  the  reaction  has  already 
begun.1 

The  following  volume  is  the  result  of  an  inquiry  into 
the  documents,  conducted  for  the  purpose  of  reaching 
satisfactory  personal  convictions  on  the  subject  of  Christ's 
birth  and  youth.  The  study  was  begun  with  a  bias  rather 
unfavorable  to  the  doctrine  of  the  miraculous  birth,  though 
with  the  usual  warm  affection  for  the  Christmas  narrative. 
The  issue  of  the  investigation  has  been  an  assured  belief 
in  the  authenticity  and  authority  of  the  Infancy  narratives, 
and  is  offered  as  a  contribution  to  the  establishment  of 
the  historic  faith  as  a  valuable  part  of  the  heritage  of  the 
Christian  Church. 

To  many  it  may  seem  that  undue  importance  has  been 
given  to  the  mere  mode  of  the  Saviour's  birth,  by  allotting 
to  it  a  discussion  so  extensive  and  minute.  The  author 
hopes  that  the  pages  which  follow  will  serve  to  dispel  this 
misconception,  for  a  misconception  it  certainly  is. 

Not  only  is  the  question  of  importance  and  interest  in 
itself,  as  are  all  questions,  even  of  minute  detail  concerning 
the  life  of  the  unique  Man,  but  it  touches  not  remotely 
upon  other  questions  of  more  vital  import, — the  testimony 
of  the  Gospel  witnesses,  the  mode  and  character  of  the 
Incarnation,  the  formation  of  the  records,  the  processes 
of  early  Christian  history. 

Indeed,  if  we  mistake  not,  it  will  be  seen  that,  while  the 
question  of  the  miraculous  birth  may  be  and  often  is  con- 
sidered apart  from  other  problems  in  Christology,  yet, 
logically,  the  entire  mode  of  interpreting  the  Incarnation 
is  involved. 

By  what   process    did   Jesus   become    Christ?     One's 
attitude  toward  this  question  will  issue  in  a  corresponding 
attitude  toward  the  question  of  His  conception. 
1  See  Sanday :  Hastings  B.  D.,  p.  646  b. 


PREFACE  IX 

In  addition  to  this,  one  need  not  adopt  the  role  of  a 
prophet  in  order  to  point  out  the  possibility  that,  at  some 
future  time,  the  mode  of  Christ's  birth  may  have  a  doc- 
trinal importance  which  it  does  not  seem  now  to  possess. 
Stranger  things  have  happened  than  that  the  process  of 
changing  emphasis,  which  has  carried  us  from  the  death 
and  resurrection,  to  the  life  and  the  teaching  of  Christ, 
may  some  day  give  an  altogether  new  significance  to  His 
birth. 

In  the  faith  that  the  witnesses  have  told  the  truth,  and 
that  the  truth  will  prevail,  this  study  of  the  narratives  of 
the  sacred  Infancy  is  offered  to  students  of  the  Life  of 
Jesus. 

Indebtedness  to  other  writers  has  been  indicated  in  the 
notes.  Wherever  I  have  found  close  resemblances  in 
thought  or  expression  I  have  indicated  them,  even  in 
cases  where  my  own  conclusions  have  been  reached 
independently.  The  peculiar  circumstances  of  this  con- 
troversy have  compelled  me  to  take  a  polemical  attitude 
toward  the  writings  of  men  who  are  unquestionably 
Christian  in  spirit.  This  free  and  willing  acknowledgment 
will  serve  to  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  I  am  concerned 
with  the  theological  and  historical  questions  at  issue,  and 
not  with  the  Christian  standing  of  individuals  or  groups. 

I  am  indebted  to  Professor  W.  J.  Beecher  for  an  inspir- 
ing course  of  study  in  prophecy,  and  for  suggestions  ;  to 
Professor  J.  S.  Riggs  for  many  helpful  discussions  of  the 
themes  here  dealt  with ;  to  the  Editorial  Committee  of  the 
Presbyterian  Board  of  Publication  for  advice  and  encour- 
agement ;  to  Miss  Caroline  C.  Crane  for  invaluable  aid  in 
the  preparation  of  the  manuscript ;  and  to  my  wife  for 
careful  literary  revision  of  the  text. 

The  Manse,  Canandaigua,  N.  Y. 
April  2,  1906. 


INTRODUCTION 


In  one  of  our  theological  journals1  appeared  recently  a 
symposium  upon  the  supernatural  birth  of  Jesus.  The 
conclusions  of  the  several  writers,  briefly  stated,  were  that 
"  the  idea  of  the  virgin  birth  reflects  the  spirit  of  the  post- 
apostolic  age,  involving  a  compromise,  or  amalgamation, 
between  the  primitive  doctrine  of  Messiahship  by  descent 
from  David,  and  the  Hellenistic,  of  Messiahship  by 
incarnation  after  preexistence,  represented  in  the  Wisdom 
doctrine  of  Paul,  and  the  Logos  doctrine  of  the  fourth 
evangelist;"  that  "however  sacred  the  associations  which 
cling  for  us  to  the  tradition,  in  simple  candor  it  must  be 
confessed  that  it  contains  nothing  essential  to  the  most 
exalted  Christology;"  that  "  he  who  casts  himself  upon 
Jesus  as  his  divine  Redeemer  will  find  the  fact  of  the 
virgin  birth  of  this  Saviour  not  only  consonant  with  his 
faith  and  an  aid  to  it,  but  a  postulate  of  it,  without  which 
he  would  be  puzzled  and  distressed."  Such  is  the  varia- 
tion of  opinion  within  the  church  upon  this  subject.  A 
serious,  scholarly  discussion  of  it  is,  therefore,  sure  to  be 
timely. 

Negative  criticism  has  at  all  times  found  these  stories 
of  a  miraculous  birth  incredible.  The  notable  fact  of  our 
day  is  that  they  have  lost  their  hold  upon  many  thought- 
ful Christian  minds,  who  are  willing  to  accept  the  Christmas 
message  of  the  Gospels  without  that  setting  of  annuncia- 
tions, dreams,  visits  of  wise  men   and  shepherds,  with 

1  Biblical  World,  vol.  x,  pp.  I-30. 


Xll  INTRODUCTION 

which  we  are  all  so  familiar.  The  causes  at  work  beget- 
ting this  spirit  of  doubt  are  : — 

(a)  The  hesitation  regarding  the  miraculous  in  the  Gos- 
pel narratives  which  is  the  outcome  of  the  scientific  temper 
and  spirit  of  our  day.  (b)  The  uncertainty  begotten  by 
historical  criticism  regarding  the  origin  of  these  special 
narratives ;  and  (c)  the  apparently  valueless  character  of 
the  fact  of  the  supernatural  birth  so  far  as  the  New  Testa- 
ment itself  is  concerned.  It  is  perhaps  the  last  reason 
which  has  weight  with  many  who  are  not  disposed  to  deny 
the  miraculous,  and  who  would  certainly  not  take  such  a 
position  in  reference  to  the  Resurrection. 

The  first  cause  is,  however,  more  prevalent  than  we  are 
accustomed  to  think.  If  the  fact  serves  no  real  purpose 
in  the  teaching  of  the  New  Testament,  may  it  not  have 
some  in  the  way  of  glorifying  the  Master  by  making  His 
incoming  into  the  world  more  like  that  of  reputed  heroes 
of  the  heathen  world  ?  Or,  if  such  an  explanation  is 
impossible,  may  not  the  emphasis  later  upon  the  doctrine 
of  original  sin  with  its  transmission  of  taint  have  led  to  this 
conception  of  a  break,  and  the  formulation  of  a  story  to 
set  it  forth  ? 

Such  questions  will  not  down,  and  an  earnest,  intelligent 
concern  for  the  Scriptures  cannot  be  indifferent  to  them. 
They  are  simply  not  the  objections  of  a  shallow  skepticism, 
but  as  well  the  expressions  of  serious,  disquieting  doubt. 
They  are  asked,  often  with  no  flippant  tone,  but  with  a  real 
desire  for  light  and  help.  It  is  at  once  manifest  that  no 
answer  can  be  helpful  which  does  not  meet  negative  criti- 
cism on  its  own  ground.  Such  objectors,  as  Keim,  Lob- 
stein,  Soltau,  or  Cheyne,  not  one  of  them  aiming  to  be 
merely  destructive  in  their  objections  to  this  recorded  fact 
of  Scripture,  can  only  be  refuted  by  exposing  their  mis- 
taken use  of  evidence  or  by  showing  the  insufficiency  of 


INTRODUCTION  Xlll 

their  reasoning.  The  task  is  not  an  easy  one  for  him  who 
would  defend  these  opening  chapters.  The  author  of 
this  work  has  in  no  way  minimized  the  strength  of  the 
scholarship  which  he  seeks  to  combat.  With  penetrating 
criticism,  logical  marshaling  of  facts,  and  sympathetic  in- 
sight he  has  striven  to  show  the  place,  purpose,  and  histori- 
cal truthfulness  of  these  accounts  in  Matthew  and  Luke. 

The  real  strength  and  value  of  the  work  will  be  found 
in  its  vigorous  grasp  of  the  whole  significance  of  the  New 
Testament  accounts  of  the  birth  of  Jesus.  Every  phase 
of  the  evidence  for  its  reality  is  discussed  with  the  minutest 
care.  Especially  is  the  character  of  the  documents  con- 
taining the  story  subjected  to  keen  analysis  and  criticism. 
They  are  made  to  speak  for  themselves  regarding  the  date 
of  their  origin,  and  the  influences  which  were  formative 
of  them. 

Some  years  since,  the  author,  little  realizing  that  his 
studies  would  ultimately  bring  him  to  a  defense  of  these 
chapters,  undertook  a  critical  study  of  the  life  and  times 
of  Herod  the  Great.  He  caught  the  spirit  of  that  trying 
period  of  Jewish  history.  The  background  of  Matthew's 
account  became  very  definite  and  vivid.  This  study  has 
fitted  him  to  discuss  with  peculiar  insight  the  Jewish 
qualities  of  these  narratives  and  to  show  whether  or  not 
we  have  here  "  a  compromise  between  a  primitive  doctrine 
of  Messiahship  by  descent  from  David,  and  a  Hellenistic, 
of  Messiahship  by  incarnation ; "  whether  there  could  or 
would  be  an  attempted  imitation  of  heathen  myths ; 
whether  there  is  here  evident  a  Babylonian  influence ; 
whether  poetic  forms  have  been  made  into  literal  prose ; 
whether,  in  short,  facts  or  fancies  are  the  contents  of  these 
chapters. 

James  Stevenson  Riggs. 

Auburn,  N.  Y.,  January  26,  1906. 


CHAPTER  I 

STATEMENT   OF   THE    PROBLEM 

The  purpose  of  the  present  chapter  is  to  make  a  full 
and  frank  statement  of  the  difficulties  involved  in  the 
documents  as  they  stand,  and  in  the  traditional  interpre- 
tation of  them  as  genuinely  historical. 

Setting  aside  all  merely  captious  and  frivolous  objec- 
tions which  have  been  urged  by  those  who  are  in  the 
habit  of  conducting  what  has  been  well  called  "  guerrilla  " 
warfare  against  the  documents,  I  wish  to  bring  the  reader 
face  to  face  with  every  genuine  exegetical  difficulty  in- 
volved in  the  section,  and  to  allow  to  each  one  all  due 
force. 

It  is  urged  that  we  have  two  accounts  of  the  Infancy, 
differing  in  tone,  atmosphere,  and  understanding  of  the 
subject,  and  containing  irreconcilable  contradictions  in  the 
statement  of  facts.  It  seems  impossible  to  fit  together 
the  accounts  of  Matthew  and  Luke  so  as  to  make  a 
coherent  and  consistent  account. 

There  are  vast  difficulties  involved  in  the  genealogies. 
Each  Gospel  professes  to  give  the  derivation  of  Jesus  from 
the  family  of  David  through  a  genealogical  line,  but  there 
are  but  two  names  in  which  they  agree,  and  each  counts 
a  different  number  of  generations. 

Moreover,  there  is  an  apparently  irreducible  contradic- 
tion between  the  genealogies  and  the  statement  concerning 
the  virgin  birth. 

The  genealogies  trace  the  origin  of  Jesus  to  David  as 

1 


2  GOSPEL  NARRATIVES 

the  theocratic  head  of  the  royal  house,  but  reliance  is 
placed  wholly  upon  Joseph  as  the  representative  of  that 
house.  Matthew  gives,  clearly  and  definitely,  the  gene- 
alogy of  Joseph.  What  significance  in  this  connection 
has  the  genealogical  derivation  of  Joseph,  if  he  were 
nothing  more  than  the  foster  father  of  Jesus  ?  The  Jews 
counted  the  generations  through  the  male  line,  and 
inheritance  was  in  all  cases  transmitted  through  the  male 
heads  of  families.  If  Jesus  was  the  son  of  David, 
according  to  the  flesh,  how  can  the  conclusion  be  avoided 
that  He  was  the  son  by  ordinary  generation  of  Joseph,  the 
husband  of  Mary  ? * 

Along  with  this  is  the  great  difference  in  viewpoint 
involved  in  the  statements  of  the  two  accounts  concerning 
the  residence  of  Joseph  and  Mary. 

Luke  states  that  Joseph  and  Mary  originally  lived  at 
Nazareth,  and  implies  that,  after  the  birth  of  Jesus,  they 
naturally  returned  to  their  old  home  to  live.  He  gives  no 
hint  of  any  danger  threatening  the  child  from  Herod  or 
from  any  other  source.  He  passes  at  once  from  the  birth 
of  Jesus  to  the  presentation  in  the  temple,  and  the  life 
at  Nazareth.  It  looks  as  if  he  knew  nothing  of  Herod's 
attempt  to  destroy  the  child,  or  the  incidents  connected 
therewith. 

On  the  other  hand,  Matthew  seems  entirely  ignorant 
of  the  previous  residence  at  Nazareth,  and  introduces  the 
fear  of  Archelaus  as  their  reason  for  going  to  Nazareth 
from  Egypt.  There  is  difficulty  involved  in  the  attempt 
to  fit  the  events  told  by  Matthew  into  the  structural 
framework  of  Luke's  account. 

Where  are  the  massacre  of  the  Innocents  and  the  flight 
into  Egypt  to  be  placed  ?  before  or  after  the  presentation 
in  the  temple  ? 

xOn  this  difficulty  see  Meyer,  Com.  on  Matt.,  vol.  i,  p.  65. 


STATEMENT  OF  THE   PROBLEM  3 

Luke's  account l  seems  to  imply  an  immediate  return  to 
Nazareth  after  the  completion  of  all  the  religious  duties 
involved  in  Mary's  purification  and  the  child's  presenta- 
tion, and  the  transition  is  so  rapid  that  no  room  seems  to 
be  left  for  the  important  events  recorded  by  Matthew. 

There  is,  too,  a  striking  difference  in  viewpoint  involved 
in  the  relative  importance  attributed  to  Joseph  and  Mary 
in  the  two  accounts.  In  Luke's  story,  Mary  is  the  cen- 
tral figure,  around  whom  all  the  persons,  save  only  the 
child,  are  grouped.  To  her  the  annunciations  are  made, 
and  her  thoughts  and  feelings  are  the  subject  of  description 
and  the  center  of  interest. 

In  Matthew's  account,  Joseph  is  brought  to  the  fore- 
ground. The  annunciations  and  dreams  are  vouchsafed 
to  him,  and  his  feelings  and  actions  are  continually  empha- 
sized. 

The  multiplication  of  supernatural  interference  in  the 
progress  of  events  by  angelic  appearances  and  inspired 
dreams  has  often  been  urged  by  critics  against  the  his- 
toricity of  the  account. 

But  all  these  considerations  are  of  slight  moment  com- 
pared with  one,  which  is  now  to  be  stated. 

The  Infancy  narrative  apparently  stands  alone  and 
unsupported  by  the  rest  of  the  New  Testament.  All  that 
we  know  concerning  the  infancy,  childhood,  and  early 
manhood  of  Jesus  up  to  the  time  of  His  baptism  at  the 
Jordan,  we  know  from  these  controverted  portions  of 
Matthew  and  Luke. 

It  is  confidently  affirmed  that  the  story  of  the  Infancy 
forms  no  part  of  the  primitive  Gospel ;  that  the  accounts 
in  Matthew  and  Luke  are  legendary  accretions  to  the 
genuine  tradition  of  the  apostles,  who  knew  nothing  about 
the  virgin  birth,  the  birth  at  Bethlehem,  the  massacre  of 

1  Luke  ii,  39. 


4  GOSPEL  NARRATIVES 

the  Innocents,  the  visit  of  the  Magi,  the  flight  into  Egypt, 
or  the  return  to  Nazareth.  It  is  affirmed  with  great  con- 
fidence that  the  disciples  during  Jesus'  life  and  throughout 
the  entire  apostolic  age  up  to  the  time  when  the  main 
body  of  the  evangelic  tradition  was  completed,  believed 
that  Jesus  was  the  son  of  Joseph  and  Mary  by  the  ordi- 
nary processes  of  nature.  Furthermore,  it  is  affirmed  that 
the  idea  of  Christ's  virgin  birth,  and  all  the  incidents  con- 
nected with  it,  are  purely  mythical,  developed  in  the  absence 
of  authentic  information  concerning  Jesus'  early  life,  partly 
out  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  partly  by  heathen  influence. 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  Christ  was  born  of  Joseph  and"  Mary 
at  Nazareth,  where  He  lived,  excepting  for  brief  absences 
at  Jerusalem  for  the  temple  ordinances  and  for  visits  to 
relatives,  until  the  day  of  His  manifestation  at  the  Jordan. 

We  may  take  Keim's  summary  of  results  as  a  representa- 
tive utterance  of  those  who  hold  the  negative  view  concern- 
ing the  authority  of  the  documents  of  the  childhood :  — 

"  As  reliable  historical  remainder  of  the  whole  legend 
of  the  Infancy,  there  is  but  little  left,  and  still  enough : 
The  birth  (at  Nazareth)  in  a  pious  Israelitish  home,  the 
circumcision  on  the  eighth  day,  performed,  it  may  be,  by 
the  father,  a  first-fruits  of  pain  for  this  young  life,  by  which( 
notwithstanding,  it  entered  into  the  divine  protection  and 
communion,  into  federal  relations  with  Israel  and  its  holy 
ordinances,  and,  in  conclusion,  the  name  of  Jesus,  which, 
as  Matthew  hints,  was  given  Him  immediately  after  birth, 
or  as  the  third  Gospel  tells  us,  may  have  been  ultimately 
bestowed  on  Him  at  His  circumcision  by  the  parents  and 
kinsfolk,  most  of  all  by  His  mother.  "  1 

1The  literal  historical  facts,  according  to  Holtzman  (L.  J.,  p.  89)  are 
these:  "Jesus,  then,  was  born  at  Nazareth  in  Galilee,  the  son  of  Joseph 
and  Mary,  being  the  eldest  of  five  brothers  and  several  sisters,  and  there 
He  grew  up." 


STATEMENT  OF  THE   PROBLEM  5 

What  are  the  reasons  adduced  for  the  claim  that  the 
narratives  of  Matthew  and  Luke  form  no  integral  part  of 
the  primitive  tradition  of  the  Gospel  ? 

There  is,  first,  the  argument  from  silence.  Mark,  John, 
and  Paul  are  adduced  as  witnesses,  especially  against  the 
central  statement  of  the  Infancy  narrative,  that  Jesus  was 
born  of  a  virgin,  and,  in  general,  against  the  entire  narrative. 

Mark  begins  his  narrative  at  the  baptism,  and,  more- 
over, expressly  states  it  as  a  definite  beginning : !  "  Begin- 
ning of  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  God.  " 

Of  the  four  evangelists,  Mark  is  the  best  representative 
of  the  primitive  Gospel  in  the  early  preaching  of  the 
apostles,  and  the  beginning  of  his  Gospel  implies  that  the 
virgin  birth  was  no  part  of  their  authoritative  message. 
With  this,  it  is  alleged,  the  book  of  the  Acts  perfectly 
agrees.  In  the  specimens  of  apostolic  preaching  exhibited 
in  the  narrative,  the  virgin  birth  and  the  other  incidents 
of  the  Infancy  story  receive  no  mention  and  evidently 
had  no  place. 

John's  makes  no  mention  of  the  miraculous  origin 
of  Jesus.  His  emphasis  is  upon  the  preexistence  of  Christ 
and  the  reality  of  His  incarnation,  but  he  says  nothing 
about  the  method  by  which  Christ's  incarnation  was 
accomplished. 

Paul  also  lays  no  stress  upon  the  manner  of  Christ's 
entrance  into  the  world.  He  seems  to  be  in  direct  con- 
flict with  the  idea  of  the  virgin  birth  in  that  he  asserts  with 
great  emphasis  Jesus'  sonship  to  David  according  to  the 
flesh,  and  the  expression  which  he  uses 2  to  describe  His 
relationship  to  David  "  would  be  singularly  inappropriate 
if  Jesus  had  not  come  into  the  world  in  the  ordinary  way." 3 

We  have  then,  apparently,  this  result,  that  three  of  the 

1  Mark  i,  I.  2  Romans  i,  3.     Cf.  2  Timothy  ii,  8. 

8  Lobstein,  p.  52. 


6  GOSPEL   NARRATIVES 

greatest  exponents  of  New  Testament  thought  and  teach- 
ing ignore  all  the  statements  made  in  the  section  of  the 
Gospels  under  review.  It  is  argued  that  this  fact  can  point 
to  no  other  conclusion  than  that  the  Infancy  section  is  no 
part  of  the  authoritative  tradition,  and  therefore  no  secure 
ground  of  faith. 

It  is  likewise  argued,  with  great  assurance,  that  there  are 
traces  of  another  tradition,  ancient  and  authentic,  to  be 
found  in  the  Infancy  section  itself,  and  in  other  parts  of 
the  narrative,  that  Jesus  was  the  son  of  Joseph. 

It  is  pointed  out  as  present  even  in  the  genealogies. 
Lobstein  says  :  "  Both  genealogies  try  to  prove  that  Jesus 
was  truly  the  Messiah  by  recording  the  succession  of  His 
ancestors  in  direct  line  from  King  David  to  Joseph,  the 
husband  of  Mary.  It  is  beyond  dispute  that  in  the  mind 
of  both  genealogists  Jesus  is  the  son  of  Joseph.  Had  they 
possessed  the  slightest  idea  of  a  miraculous  birth,  they 
would  have  drawn  up  the  genealogy  of  Mary,  not  of 
Joseph. " l 

The  ancient  tradition  is  more  clearly  manifest  in  Luke's 
statement  that  Joseph  and  Mary  were  puzzled2  by  the 
words  of  Jesus,  in  reply  to  Mary's  reproachful  question, 
that  He  must  be  concerned  in  the  things  of  His  Father. 
Would  Joseph  and  Mary  have  been  puzzled  if  they  had 
had  in  their  minds  the  wonderful  events  which  preceded 
and  accompanied  His  birth?  Would  they  not  have  been 
prepared  for  any  unusual  manifestation  of  self-conscious- 
ness in  the  budding  Messiahship  of  Mary's  marvelous 
Son?  This  sentence  is  taken  to  be  an  authentic 
survival  of  the  time  when  Jesus  was  believed  to  be 
the  son  of  Joseph  as  well  as  of  Mary,  before  the  wonders 
connected  with  His  birth  had  been  imagined. 

This  same  consideration  is  urged  in  connection  with  the 
1  Lobstein,  pp.  45,  46.  s  Luke  ii,  50. 


STATEMENT  OF  THE   PROBLEM  7 

incident  recorded  of  Maiy  and  His  brethren  in  Matthew 
xii,  46-50,  taken  in  connection  with  Mark  iii,  21,  which  is 
probably  an  echo  of  the  same  incidents,  or  of  a  similar 
one.  Would  Mary  have  ventured  thus  to  interfere  with 
Christ  in  His  mission  and  work,  if  she  had  carried  in  her 
mind  the  cherished  memory  of  those  wondrous  scenes  of 
promise  and  fulfillment  which  were  connected  with  the 
birth  of  her  son  ? 

This  same  connection  with  a  primitive  tradition  is 
claimed  for  those  passages  scattered  through  the  Gospels, 
in  which.  Jesus  is  spoken  of  as  the  son  of  Joseph  l  and 
the  carpenter's  son,  and  the  allied  passages  in  which  His 
"  parents  " 2  are  spoken  of.  Keim  maintains  that  there 
was  an  unbroken  tradition  of  the  natural  birth  in  Jewish- 
Christian  circles  dating  from  the  earliest  time  and  persist- 
ing along  with  the  other  tradition  into  the  second  century. 

These,  I  think,  constitute  the  real  difficulties  connected 
with  the  Infancy  section,  and  they  are  certainly,  on  the 
surface,  formidable  enough.  Keim's  arguments  against 
the  account  on  the  ground  of  the  distance  to  Egypt,  the 
unreasonableness  of  going  to  Egypt  at  all,  and  other  con- 
siderations of  a  similar  nature,  seem  to  me  to  have  little 
weight.  It  would  be  simply  impossible  for  two  men  to 
narrate  from  different  points  of  view,  and  for  different 
purposes,  a  series  of  events  such  as  is  contained  in  the 
double  narrative  of  Matthew  and  Luke  without  leaving  it 
open  to  a  priori  objection. 

These  are  doctrinal  and  philosophical  objections  urged 
against  the  virgin  birth,  but  with  these  I  am  not  now  con- 
cerned. The  question  is  primarily  one  of  evidence ;  the 
matter  of  doctrinal  construction  is  entirely  secondary. 
The  exegetical  and  critical  difficulties  outlined  above  are 

1  John  i,  45  ;  vi,  42  ;  Matt,  xiii,  55. 

2  Luke  ii,  27,  41. 


8  GOSPEL   NARRATIVES 

real  and  of  vital  importance,  and  must  be  squarely  and 
honestly  met.  I  propose  to  question  the  witnesses  and 
to  attempt  the  establishment  of  my  views  on  purely 
critical  grounds.  I  make  no  requisition  upon  the  doctrine 
/  of  inspiration,  and  no  appeal  to  the  authority  of  the 
church.  My  purpose  is  to  set  forth  the  grounds  upon 
which  I  have  reached  the  conclusion  that  the  Infancy 
section  is  a  substantially  accurate  historical  record.  That 
this  conclusion,  if  established,  will  contribute  an  argument 
for  inspiration  and  also  for  the  authority  of  the  church  as 
the  guardian  of  the  truth  is  clear ;  but  this  is  the  conclu- 
sion of  the  argument,  not  the  basis  of  it. 

In  view  of  the  difficulties  involved  in  these  two 
accounts,  is  there  sufficient  motive  for  attempting  to 
retain  them  ?  If  we  follow  the  advice  of  the  negative 
critics  and  abandon  this  entire  preliminary  Gospel  as 
mythical  and  untrustworthy,  are  we  thereby  greatly 
impoverished  ?  or  are  we  relieved  from  a  weight  and  an 
embarrassment?  Are  we  to  mourn  a  loss  or  rejoice  in 
an  enrichment  through  deliverance  from  a  burden  ? 

It  is  my  belief  that  in  the  abandonment  of  the  Infancy 
section  we  should  be  losers,  and  large  losers,  but  I  am 
quite  sure  that  we  have  not  always  correctly  understood 
just  what  our  losses  would  be.  I  do  not  believe,  nor  can 
I  for  one  moment  admit,  that  this  discussion  involves  the 
stability  or  integrity  of  the  Christian  faith  as  a  whole.  If 
we  are  compelled  by  the  results  of  sane  and  intelligent 
criticism  to  abandon  the  preliminary  sections  of  Matthew 
and  Luke  with  all  that  they  contain,  we  are  not  driven 
thereby  to  abandon  our  Christian  heritage. 

The  religion  of  Christ  is  broadly  and  firmly  established, 
— based  upon  what  He  was  as  revealed  in  the  manifold 
portrait  of  Him  by  those  who  knew  Him  best.  That 
face,  in  which  shines  the  light  of  the  knowledge  of  the 


STATEMENT  OF  THE   PROBLEM  9 

glory  of  God,  can  never  be  destroyed  by  the  blotting  out 
of  any  one  detail,  or  the  erasure  from  the  sacred  text  of 
any  one  item.  Let  it  not  be  forgotten  that  the  utmost 
that  negative  criticism,  working  upon  these  texts,  can  do 
is  to  throw  into  the  shadow  of  uncertainty  the  actual  facts 
concerning  the  early  life  of  Jesus.  If  it  can  force  us  to 
abandon  our  positive  statements  concerning  the  mode  of 
His  entrance  into  the  world  and  the  simple  details  hitherto 
confessed  as  Gospel  concerning  His  early  life,  it  is  not 
itself  thereby  enabled  to  make  any  positive  statement 
whatsoever.  Many  seem  to  take  it  for  granted  that  by 
the  overthrow  of  the  historic  belief  concerning  Christ's 
nativity  they  are  enabled  to  substitute  a  positive  statement 
of  their  own  as  to  the  facts  of  the  birth  and  infancy,  but 
this  assumption,  as  I  shall  proceed  to  show,  is  a  fallacious 
begging  of  the  question.  There  is  but  one  rational 
attitude  for  those  who  accept  the  results  of  the  negative 
criticism  of  the  Infancy  sections,  and  that  is  to  say  in 
reply  to  all  mental  questionings  concerning  the  early  life 
of  Jesus,  "  We  do  not  know." 

The  position  thus  reached  need  not  necessarily  affect  our 
attitude  toward  the  rest  of  the  sacred  story.  What  Jesus 
was  in  His  maturity  as  a  teacher,  as  a  healer  of  disease,  as 
a  friend  of  men  and  a  servant  of  God,  is  clearly  seen  in  the 
record.  We  may  accept  that  as  the  basis  of  our  faith ;  in 
the  absence  of  authentic  information  concerning  His  pre- 
vious life  we  may  be  reverently  silent,  and  yet  remain  His 
followers  and  rejoice  in  His  light.  I  agree  altogether  with 
Lange  when  he  says  that  "  without  the  virgin  birth  a  man 
cannot  understand  any  incident  of  Christ's  life  perfectly ;" 
but  that  with  the  virgin  birth  we  are  able  to  interpret  His 
life  perfectly,  is  too  large  an  assumption  to  make,  for  we 
may  easily  overlook  or  underestimate  some  other  fact 
equally  vital.     The  omission  of  the  infancy  and  youth  of 


10  GOSPEL  NARRATIVES 

Jesus  from  our  interpretation  of  Him  will  result,  without 
question,  in  a  mutilation  of  our  Christology,  but  it  will 
leave  us  enough  to  establish  the  validity  of  our  Chris- 
tian hope,  and  form  a  secure  basis  for  Christian  life  and 
service. 

Why,  then,  conduct  any  crusade  on  behalf  of  the  con- 
troverted section  of  the  Gospel  ?  I  answer :  First, 
because,  it  is  in  itself  so  serious  a  mutilation.  Without 
the  controverted  section,  we  have  no  Gospel  of  the  infancy 
and  youth  of  Jesus.  We  have  no  Christmas  message.  I 
am  aware  that  Lobstein  has  constructed  his  argument  for 
the  very  purpose  of  conserving  the  religious  value  of  the 
narrative  while  surrendering  its  historicity.  He  would  retain 
for  us  the  Christmas  message  while  denying  an  objective 
basis  to  the  account  of  Christ's  birth.  It  must  be  confessed 
that  while  this  theory  makes  a  promise  to  the  ear  it  breaks 
it  to  the  heart.  The  essential  core  of  the  Christmas 
message  is  that  the  very  Christ  of  God  was  born  as  a 
little  child,  and  with  this  the  singing  of  the  angels,  the 
virgin  birth,  the  visit  of  the  wise  men,  perfectly  accord. 

The  alternative  which  this  theory  presents  is  that  Jesus 
of  Nazareth,  who  afterwards  at  the  baptism  or  in  the 
wilderness,  by  union  with  the  Divine  Spirit  became  the 
Christ,  was  born  in  Nazareth  of  Joseph  and  Mary.  This 
latter  theory  does  not  retain  in  any  real  sense  the  humilia- 
tion of  Christ.  It  does  imply  a  deification  of  man,  but 
no  humiliation  of  the  Lord  of  Glory.  All  that  is  left  to 
us  by  the  theory  of  Lobstein  is  that  the  virgin  birth  is  a 
secondaiy  and  inferior  and  essentially  incorrect  attempt 
on  the  part  of  the  church  to  construe  the  person  of  Christ. 
Keim's  poetical-legendary  interpretation  leaves  the  whole 
account  separated  from  the  fact,  a  rainbow  of  imaginary 
embellishments  about  the  cradle  of  the  Messiah,  a  garland 
of   cut    flowers  without  root   in   the   reality   of   history, 


STATEMENT  OF  THE  PROBLEM  II 

bound  to  wither  and  fade,  as  any  mere  poetry  must,  which 
has  been  made  to  do  the  duty  of  fact. 

The  entire  art  and  literature  of  Christmas,  the  hymns 
of  the  nativity,  the  pictures  of  the  Virgin,  the  sanctities 
of  thought  and  feeling  which  have  gathered  round  Beth- 
lehem, must  be  interpreted  to  the  coming  generation  with 
this  footnote:  "  All  these  things  are  beautiful  as  poetry, 
but  untrustworthy  as  history.  According  to  poetry, 
Jesus  was  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary  in  the  stable  of  the 
Khan  at  Bethlehem ;  according  to  history  He  was  born 
of  Joseph  and  Mary  at  Nazareth." 

I  am  well  aware  that  this  consideration  is  by  no  means 
final.  We  should  be  prepared,  if  candor  demands  it,  to 
make  the  sacrifice,  but  we  should  not  be  blinded  by 
rhetoric  to  the  exact  consequences  of  what  we  are  doing, 
nor  submit  to  having  foisted  upon  us  the  imagina- 
tions of  modern  critics  in  place  of  the  accounts  of  Matthew 
and  Luke,  for  the  so-called  historical  substitute  for  the 
narrative  is  as  absolutely  imaginary  and  fabulous  as  any- 
thing can  possibly  be  in  the  accounts  which  it  displaces. 
Those  who  believe  that  because  it  is  discredited  that 
Jesus  was  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary  at  Bethlehem,  it  is 
therefore  firmly  established  that  He  was  born  of  Joseph 
and  Mary  at  Nazareth,  are  easily  satisfied.  As  a  matter 
of  fact,  the  same  sort  of  criticism,  which  has  for  many 
destroyed  the  trustworthiness  of  the  Infancy  documents, 
if  relentlessly  and  rigorously  applied,  leaves  not  a  shred 
of  certainty  for  the  entire  period  previous  to  the  appear- 
ance at  the  Jordan. 

The  residuum  which  Keim  leaves  for  us  from  the 
Infancy  legend  is  itself  in  some  of  its  component  parts 
open  to  serious  objection.  The  name  Jesus,  for  example, 
though  it  is  consistently  applied  to  the  hero  throughout 
the  New  Testament,  is  very  suspicious  in  its  origin.     It  is 


12  GOSPEL   NARRATIVES 

bestowed  upon  Him  before  His  birth  by  the  angel  of  the 
Annunciation,  and  is  so  obviously  connected  with  Israel- 
itish  theocratic  hopes  as  to  lend  color  to  the  supposition 
that  it  might  have  been  bestowed  upon  Him,  like  the 
epithet  Christ,  by  the  enthusiasm  of  His  followers,  who 
were  always  eager  to  unite  Him  with  the  Old  Testament. 

Joseph's  connection  with  the  family  is  exceedingly 
dubious.  Mark  does  not  mention  him,  neither  does  Paul, 
and  the  latter,  by  implication,  excludes  him.  More  than 
that,  the  way  in  which  Joseph's  genealogy  is  used  to 
establish  the  Davidic  origin  of  Jesus  suggests  the  possi- 
bility that  his  historic  name  and  his  royal  lineage  led  the 
disciples  to  imagine  a  closer  relationship  with  him  than 
the  facts  would  justify.  His  connection  with  Jesus  seems 
so  fanciful,  and  his  disappearance  so  sudden  and  complete, 
as  to  give  an  air  of  unreality  to  the  whole  account  con- 
cerning him.  How  do  we  know  that  Joseph  and  Mary 
were  married  at  all  ?  The  general  belief  in  the  marriage 
of  Joseph  and  Mary,  apart  from  the  account  in  the  Infancy 
section,  rests  upon  the  implication  of  two  indirect  state- 
ments 1  of  John's  Gospel,  which  Keim  would  not  have  us 
rate  too  highly  as  an  authority. 

It  may  be  doubtful  whether  Jesus  was  born  at  Bethle- 
hem ;  it  is  certainly  no  assured  result  of  criticism  that 
He  was  born  at  Nazareth.  We  have  a  strong  consensus 
of  testimony  that  He  lived  there,  but  no  unshakable 
evidence  that  He  was  born  there.  The  very  fact  that  we 
have  a  legend  that  He  was  born  at  Bethlehem  is  evidence 
enough  that  it  is  by  no  means  certain  that  He  was  born  at 
Nazareth.  Such  a  legend  could  grow  up  only  in  an 
atmosphere  of  uncertainty.  Conjecture  does  not  flourish 
in  the  presence  of  assured  and  incontrovertible  fact.  In 
short,  by  the  rejection  of  the  preliminary  section  of  the 
1  John  i,  45  ;  vi,  42. 


STATEMENT  OF  THE  PROBLEM  1 3 

first  and  third  Gospels  as  documentary  evidence  worthy 
of  trust,  we  are  logically  forced  to  a  position  of  nescience 
concerning  the  time,  place,  circumstances,  and  conditions 
of  the  Saviour's  birth.  We  have  no  distinctly  Christmas 
message. 

But  the  loss  is  more  serious  than  this.  By  the  rejection 
vof  this  preliminary  portion  of  the  Gospel,  we  are  deprived 
of  the  use  of  important  data  in  the  development  of  Christ's 
self-consciousness. 

I  am  concerned  more  for  the  account  which  Luke  gives 
of  the  natural  infancy,  the  gradual  growth  in  body,  mind, 
and  spirit  of  the  Son  of  man,  and  that  incomparable 
exhibition  of  the  dawning  of  His  consciousness  of  a 
unique  relationship  with  the  Father  given  in  the  incident 
in  the  temple,  than  for  the  virgin  birth  considered  in  the 
abstract  and  by  itself.  We  cannot  have  Luke's  picture  of 
the  growing  of  Christ  without  the  virgin  birth ;  for  it  is 
part  of  one  and  the  same  undivided  testimony. 

It  would  be  well  for  those  who  occupy  the  negative 
attitude  toward  these  documents  to  ponder  deeply  their 
actual  historical  influence  upon  the  thought  of  the  church. 
They  have  been  fiercely  attacked  from  the  beginning,  but 
we  ought  to  love  them  for  the  enemies  they  have  made. 
From  two  sides  the  attacks  have  converged  upon  the  Gos- 
pel of  the  Infancy,  in  both  cases  in  the  interests  of  a  muti- 
lated Gospel.  The  Ebionites  attacked  the  virgin  birth 
because  they  denied  the  essential  divinity  of  Christ.  They 
claimed  that  the  man  Jesus,  born  of  the  union  of  Joseph 
and  Mary,  became  Messiah  by  union  with  the  Divine 
Spirit  at  His  baptism.  They  rejected  the  entire  Gospel  of 
the  Infancy,  because  it  put  the  inspiration  in  the  life  of 
Jesus  too  far  back  and  brought  Him  too  close  to  the 
divine. 

On  totally  different  grounds  the  Gnostics  attacked  the 


14  GOSPEL  NARRATIVES 

Infancy  story.  They  were  dualists,  who  maintained  the 
inherent  and  necessary  corruption  of  matter.  They  could 
not  believe  it  possible  for  the  Son  of  God  to  be  born  of  a 
woman,  to  be  a  child,  or  to  live  as  a  real  man  in  the  flesh. 
This  would  be  not  a  humiliation,  but  a  degradation.  Both 
parties  to  this  concerted  attack  denied  the  actual  reality 
of  the  Incarnation. 

I  believe  that  it  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  every  doc- 
trinal attack  upon  the  validity  of  the  Infancy  document  is 
animated  by  feelings  akin  to  those  of  the  Ebionites  and 
Gnostics.  The  more  serious  of  the  two  heresies  (if  one 
may  make  a  comparison  in  a  case  where  both  would  have 
been  fatal  to  Christianity  as  an  universal  religion)  was  the 
Gnostic,  which  really  issues  in  a  denial  of  our  Lord's 
humanity. 

It  was  not  difficult  for  men,  to  whom  Christ  brought 
such  a  fresh  and  wonderful  revelation  of  the  unseen  God 
and  the  meaning  of  life,  to  accept  Him  as  divine,  but  it  was 
almost  impossible  to  accept  Him  as  at  once  divine  and 
human.  It  was  the  historic  task  of  the  Infancy  documents 
through  arid  ages  of  dogma  to  keep  alive  faith  in  the 
human  Christ,  for  men  could  not  cut  Him  loose  from  real 
participation  in  human  life  and  experience  so  long  as  they 
held  before  them  the  authoritative  documents  which  as- 
serted His  real  birth  and  His  genuine  childhood. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  Infancy  documents  resist, 
by  their  central  affirmation  of  the  miraculous  birth,  all 
attempts  to  separate  the  human  Jesus  from  the  eternal 
Christ.  Their  connection  with  this  entire  stream  of  tend- 
ency is  clearly  and  forcibly  expressed  by  Lange : — 

"  The  remembrance  which  the  church  has  preserved, 
and  the  testimony  she  has  given  to  the  childhood  of  the 
Lord  Jesus,  form  a  series  of  incidents,  together  displaying 
in  artless,  poetical,  and  sacred  delineation,  the  full  reality 


STATEMENT  OF  THE  PROBLEM  1 5 

and  historic  nature  on  one  side ;  on  the  other,  the  perfect 
ideality  of  the  individual  life  of  Jesus  in  its  beginnings  and 
earliest  events.  They  form  a  cycle;  they  manifest  them- 
selves, by  the  most  speaking  facts,  to  belong  to  the  Chris- 
tology  of  the  childhood  of  Jesus.  This  cycle  is  naturally 
a  circle  of  most  mysterious  and  tender  images,  exhibiting 
the  beauties  and  graces,  as  well  as  the  terrors,  of  poetry 
in  the  most  absolute  reality.  These  images  only  differ 
from  many  of  the  productions  of  actual  poetry  by  surpass- 
ing, in  their  strict  conformity  to  the  due  proportions  of 
ideal  perfection,  all  that  is  glaring  and  enthusiastic  in  more 
ordinary  poetry  and,  at  the  same  time,  all  the  images  of 
fancy.  Their  reality  has  always  had  the  effect  of  banish- 
ing from  the  center  of  Christian  doctrine  the  mutilated 
forms  of  Ebionitism,  which  cannot  believe  in  the  full  spir- 
itual glorification  of  corporeity. 

"In  our  days,  indeed,  the  history  of  Christ's  childhood 
seems  to  have  been  almost  abandoned  to  Ebionitism. 
The  practice  of  removing  the  ideality  of  Christ's  life  to 
greater  and  still  greater  distances  from  its  commencement 
has  been  constantly  persisted  in.  At  first,  in  accordance 
with  the  views  of  the  ancient  Ebionites  and  Socinians,  it 
was  not  till  His  baptism  that  He  was  allowed  to  become 
the  Son  of  God ;  then,  not  till  long  after  His  baptism  and 
after  having,  as  was  supposed,  first  passed  through  the 
school  of  John  the  Baptist.  Again,  another  advance  was 
made,  and  it  was  said  that  it  was  not  till  after  His  death 
that  the  image  of  Christ  was  produced,  as  an  embellished 
image  of  the  actual  Christ.  And,  further  still,  Paul  is  said 
to  have  been  the  inventor  of  mature,  universal  Christianity. 
A  new  station  is  next  formed  by  the  opinion  that  the 
perfectly  ideal,  or,  as  it  is  rather  thought,  idealistic,  view 
of  the  life  of  Christ,  given  in  pseudo-Gospel  of  John,  did 
not  arise  till  about  the  end  of  the  second  century.     At 


1 6  GOSPEL   NARRATIVES 

last,  even  the  present  times  are  passed  by,  and  Christian- 
ity is  first  to  become  a  truth  in  the  times  of  the  Coming 
Spirit.  These  spouting  prophets  of  a  spirit  who  is  not  to 
kindle  but  to  extinguish  the  light  of  the  Gospel  history 
take  one  step  further,  and  expect,  with  the  Jews,  the  ad- 
vent of  the  Messiah  in  a  new  religion.  Such  is  the  histor- 
ical progress  of  Ebionitism. 

"  It  is  a  part  of  the  notion  of  Christianity  that,  as  the 
incarnate  Word,  it  should  be  perfect  from  its  very  origin. 
Christianity  is  distinctively  a  new  principle  of  all  improve- 
ment, and  cannot  itself  meanwhile  need  improvement.  It 
is  the  principle  of  the  identity  of  the  eternal  Word  and 
human  corporeity,  of  real  and  ideal  life ;  it  therefore  rejects 
every  attempt  to  introduce  into  its  origin  that  incongruence 
between  the  ideal  and  life  which  oppresses  the  ancient 
aeon.  It  comes  forth  from  the  heart  of  God,  as  a  new  and 
miraculous  life;  hence  a  halo  of  miracles  is  formed  around 
this  central  miracle ;  the  rays  of  the  rising  sun."  l 

From  this  fine  and  truthful  historical  summary,  I  take 
for  repetition  and  particular  emphasis  this  one  sentence : 
"  Their  reality  has  always  had  the  effect  of  banishing  from 
the  center  of  Christian  doctrine  the  mutilated  forms  of 
Ebionitism,  which  cannot  believe  in  the  full  spiritual  glori- 
fication of  corporeity." 

We  have,  then,  this  historical  situation  :  That  against  the 
tendencies  of  Ebionitism  and  Gnosticism  the  Infancy  sec- 
tion has  contributed  its  full  quota,  in  proportion  to  the 
rest  of  the  Gospel,  to  the  maintenance  of  that  complete, 
full-orbed,  Catholic  faith  which  holds  equally  and  firmly 
to  the  divine  and  human  Christ ;  and  the  dynamic  of  that 
important  contribution  to  Christian  thought  is  the  miracu- 
lous birth  in  conjunction  with  the  real  childhood  of  Jesus. 

1  Lange,  Life  of  Christ,  Am.  ed.,  1872,  vol.  i,  pp.  257,  258. 


STATEMENT  OF  THE  PROBLEM  1 7 

A  document  with  such  a  history  will  not  readily  be  dis- 
credited, nor  ought  it  to  be  lightly  surrendered. 

There  is  also  a  motive  for  the  defense  of  the  Infancy 
documents  to  be  found  in  their  relationship  to  the  general 
question  of  the  character  for  trustworthiness  of  the  New 
Testament. 

Our  views  as  to  the  preliminary  section  of  the  Gospels 
do  not  necessarily  determine  our  views  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment documents  as  a  whole,  but  that  they  have  a  tendency 
in  logical  minds  thus  to  do  cannot  be  doubted. 

That  so  considerable  a  modification  of  the  true  history 
as  is  involved  in  the  visit  to  Bethlehem  and  the  virgin 
birth,  the  coming  of  the  Magi,  the  slaughter  of  the  Inno- 
cents, the  flight  into  Egypt,  could  be  introduced  so  early 
into  the  evangelic  tradition  that  only  slight  traces,  if  any, 
of  other  teaching  appear,  casts  suspicion  upon  the  whole 
process  by  which  the  New  Testament  was  formed.  There 
is  no  more  reason,  textually  speaking,  to  suspect  the  pre- 
liminary sections  of  Matthew  and  Luke  than  any  other 
portions  of  those  Gospels.  There  is  no  better  reason  for 
supposing  that  loose  mythical  material  has  been  gathered 
into  the  Infancy  sections  than  for  supposing  that  such 
material  has  been  gathered  into  other  parts  of  the  New 
Testament. 

No  question  of  criticism  can  be  treated  absolutely  alone 
in  complete  isolation  from  questions  generically  related  to 
it.  And  the  logical  mind  is  driven  by  inherent  necessity 
from  one  conclusion  to  another.  I  must  therefore  record 
my  conviction  that  the  tendency  of  the  criticism  which 
has  been  directed  against  this  section  of  the  Gospel  is  to 
lead  one  to  a  general  skepticism  concerning  the  authen- 
ticity and  authority  of  the  documents  of  the  evangelic  tra- 
dition, which  is  not  justified  by  the  facts. 

It  is  interesting  to  note,  in  this  connection,  that  Soltau 
2 


15  GOSPEL  NARRATIVES 

introduces  his  attack  upon  the  Infancy  section  of  the  Gos- 
pel by  considerations  which  tend  to  discredit  many  other 
sections  of  the  New  Testament  as  well. 1 

1  may  also  record  the  conviction  that  the  same  treat- 
ment which  has  been  accorded  to  the  preliminary  part  of 
the  Gospel  would,  if  rigorously  carried  out,  destroy  not 
only  the  testimony  to  the  incidents  of  Christ's  life,  but 
much  of  the  testimony  upon  which  rests  our  confidence 
in  general  history. 2 

As  I  conceive  it,  therefore,  there  is  abundant  justification 
on  the  ground  of  the  issues  involved  for  a  vigorous  defense 
of  the  controverted  sections  of  the  Gospel,  in  so  far  as  this 
may  be  done  with  intelligence  and  candor. 

In  view  of  these  considerations,  also,  it  may  be  well  to 
emphasize  that  the  burden  of  proof  rests  with  those  who 
make  the  attack.  They  are  bound  to  give  a  clear,  con- 
sistent account  of  the  rise  of  the  beliefs  involved  in  the 
sections  under  review  and  a  convincing  demonstration  that 
the  surrender  of  the  documents  involves  no  serious  muti- 
lation of  Christian  doctrine. 

Let  us  listen,  then,  to  what  they  have  to  say.  Let  us 
begin  with  a  theory  which  is  more  or  less  involved  in 
every  attempt  to  destroy  the  authority  of  the  Infancy  sec- 
tions,— I  mean  the  theory  that  Old  Testament  prophecy 
is  responsible  for  the  incidents  narrated  in  them. 

^oltau,  The  Birth  of  Jesus  Christ,  p.  9.  On  Soltau's  general  critical 
position,  see  Exp.  Times,  vol.  xiii,  p.  75- 

2  See  Bruce,  Miraculous  Element  in  Gospels,  p.  364. 


CHAPTER   II 

THE  INFLUENCE  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  PROPHECIES  IN 
THE  FORMATION  OF  THE  INFANCY  STORY  l 

At  the  outset  of  the  inquiry  concerning  the  authority 
of  the  preliminary  sections  of  Matthew  and  Luke,  we  are 
met  with  the  important  question  concerning  the  influence 
of  the  prophecies  of  the  Old  Testament  in  the  formation 
of  the  biography  of  Christ.  In  all  the  forms  which  the 
mythical  hypothesis  of  the  life  of  Christ  has  assumed,  the 
Messianic  expectations  of  the  Jews  at  the  time  of  Christ 
and  their  interpretation  and  use  of  supposedly  predictive 
passages  of  the  Old  Testament  necessarily  play  an  impor- 
tant role. 

The  older  apologetics  made  much  of  the  fulfillments  of 
ancient  oracles  in  the  unfolding  of  history,  and  especially 
in  the  life  of  the  world's  Redeemer.  Prophecy  and  his- 
tory, prediction  and  event,  were  made  to  fit  together  in 
minute  and  intimate  correspondence.  Prophecy,  accord- 
ing to  this  view,  is  history  enfolded ;  history,  prophecy 
unfolded. 

It  is,  of  course,  perfectly  evident  that  those  who  deny 
the  supernatural  element  in  the  Scriptures  and  in  history 
could  not  admit  the  thought  of  any  such  minute  cor- 
respondence between  specific  predictions  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament and  specific  events  recorded  in  the  New,  without 

1  For  a  statement  of  the  part  played  by  this  theory  in  the  discussion,  see 
Appendix,  note  A,  The  History  of  the  Discussion. 

19 


20  GOSPEL  NARRATIVES 

fatally  compromising  their  position.  The  fact  once 
admitted,  its  bearing  upon  the  question  of  the  super- 
natural is  inescapable.  The  argument  was  tempting,  but 
dangerous.  Rationalism  cleverly  turned  the  tables  on 
those  who  made  use  of  the  argument  from  prophecy  to 
fulfillment  by  a  simple  two-fold  device,  the  operation  of 
which  for  some  time  practically  nullified  the  entire  force 
and  meaning  of  the  argument  from  prophecy. 

It  is  argued  that  in  many  alleged  cases  of  fulfillment  the 
passage  from  the  Old  Testament  was  not  predictive  at  all 
and  did  not  refer  to  the  Messiah,  and  hence  was  not  and 
could  not  have  been  fulfilled  in  the  life  of  Jesus. 

According  to  this  method  the  attempt  is  made  to  break 
the  tie  between  the  Old  Testament  and  the  New  by 
impugning  the  exegetical  methods  of  the  New  Testament 
writers.  The  biographers  of  Jesus,  especially  Matthew, 
and  the  other  writers  of  the  New  Testament,  made  an 
unjustifiable  use  of  the  older  book  of  revelation.  They 
took  passages  at  random,  wrenched  them  from  the  con- 
text, interpreted  them  without  regard  to  their  historic  set- 
ting, and  violently  made  them  to  apply  to  incidents  with 
which  they  had  no  real  connection. 

The  other  half  of  the  device  is,  in  cases  where  the 
exegetical  argument  fails  to  apply,  to  give  the  prophetic 
passage  the  credit  of  creating  the  incident  with  which  it  is 
connected.  A  familiar  Old  Testament  passage  has  been 
popularly  interpreted  as  applying  to  the  Messiah.  Since 
it  was  in  common  circulation,  the  disciples  of  Jesus  were, 
of  course,  acquainted  with  it.  They  felt  in  a  dim  but 
enthusiastic  way  that  every  such  passage  must  apply  to 
Jesus,  and  under  the  stress  of  the  mythic  tendency  the 
incident  was  created. 

In  connection  with  this  question,  it  is  to  be  noticed 
that  if  we  are  compelled  to  a  choice  between  the  horns 


OLD    TESTAMENT  PROPHECIES  21 

of  the  dilemma  thus  forced  upon  us,  the  believer  in  the 
New  Testament  cannot  hesitate  for  a  moment.  The  results 
of  the  two  methods  are  not  equal. 

The  first  method,  even  if  successfully  applied,  does  not 
destroy  the  harmony  between  the  Old  and  the  New  Tes- 
taments, prophecy  and  the  life  of  Christ,  which  rests  upon 
a  sounder  foundation  than  specific  fulfillments  of  specific 
predictions,  nor  does  it  impugn  the  substantial  historic 
accuracy  of  the  Gospels.  If  the  writers  of  the  Gospels 
were  simply  guilty  of  making  incorrect  application  of  Old 
Testament  texts  to  events  within  their  knowledge,  we  are 
still  on  the  firm  ground  of  history,  and  need  have  no 
uneasiness  concerning  the  essential  facts.  The  hypothesis 
simply  delimits  their  literary  inspiration.  If  successfully 
maintained,  it  shows  that  they  adopted  the  literary  meth- 
ods of  their  own  day,  and  the  Spirit  of  inspiration  did  not 
see  fit  to  dictate  their  use  of  the  Old  Testament. 

The  other  method,  however,  cuts  at  the  root  of  things. 
If  it  be  proved  that  the  disciples,  under  the  influence  of  the 
mythic  temper,  invented  incidents  for  the  life  of  Christ  to 
fit  Old  Testament  predictions,  much  has  been  done  to 
undermine  the  entire  fabric  of  New  Testament  trustworth- 
iness. The  testimony  of  the  writers  to  any  important  fact 
is  then  worth  very  little.  The  subtlety  of  the  method  and 
its  wide  applicability  may  be  seen  in  some  of  the  uses  made 
of  it.  For  example,  Harnack,  in  "What  Is  Christianity  ?" 
in  attempting  to  group  the  stories  of  miracles  in  the  New 
Testament  according  to  the  causes  operating  in  their  pro- 
duction, cites  "stories  such  as  arose  in  the  interests  of  the 
fulfillment  of  Old  Testament  sayings." 

The  second  method  can  be  applied  only  to  a  part  of  the 
passages  in  question,  though  it  is  the  most  important  part. 
If  the  connection  between  the  prediction  and  the  event  is 
remote,  or,  if  the  passage  is  fairly  open  to  the  charge  of 


22  GOSPEL  NARRATIVES 

being  fanciful  or  is  merely  illustrative,  the  generic  relation- 
ship between  the  two  cannot  successfully  be  maintained. 

I  propose  now  to  deal  somewhat  in  detail  with  the  pas- 
sages to  which  the  second  method  is  applicable,  confining 
attention  to  those  in  the  section  under  review. 

This  discussion  is  vitally  related  to  the  question  of 
Christ's  birth,  and  the  controversy  may  be  brought  to  an 
issue  in  the  preliminary  section  of  the  Gospel  of  Matthew. 

The  hypothesis,  therefore,  stands  before  us.  The  ele- 
ments of  the  process  are  these  :  (i)  An  Old  Testament 
prediction  in  common  circulation  among  the  Jews  who 
had  become  Christians.  (2)  A  blank  space  in  the  life  of 
Christ.  (3)  The  operation  of  the  mythic  temper  by  which 
the  blank  space  is  filled  with  an  incident  created  in  har- 
mony with  the  prophecy. 

It  is  perhaps  fair  to  say  that  in  many  instances,  instead 
of  the  absolutely  blank  space  in  Christ's  life,  there  is  a 
simple  and  natural  incident  devoid  of  the  supernatural 
which  readily  lends  itself  to  exaggeration.  The  process, 
however,  is  practically  the  same. 

Before  we  come  to  the  examination  of  specific  passages, 
there  are  a  few  observations  to  be  offered  on  the  hypoth- 
esis in  general. 

In  the  first  place  there  is  a  problem  to  be  solved  in  con- 
nection with  the  use  of  specific  passages.  There  are  in 
the  Gospel  of  Matthew  thirty-seven  quotations  from  the 
Old  Testament,  taken  from  eleven  or  twelve  books,  and 
closely  interwoven  with  the  incidents  of  Christ's  life.  This 
number,  large  in  proportion  to  the  size  of  the  Gospel,  is 
small  by  comparison  with  the  total  number  of  Old  Testa- 
ment passages  commonly  receiving  a  Messianic  interpre- 
tation.    It  is,  in  fact,  a  mere  selection. 

Now  a  selection  of  this  kind  must  have  been  made  either 
at  random  or  in  accordance  with  some  unifying  principle 


OLD    TESTAMENT  PROPHECIES  23 

— for  why  should  these  thirty-seven  passages  have  been 
chosen  rather  than  any  other  thirty-seven  out  of  the  vast 
number  available  P1  If  the  passages  were  chosen  at  ran- 
dom by  disciples  who  blindly  picked  up  any  passage  that 
seemed  likely  to  fit  the  life  of  the  Messiah,  then  the  result 
would  necessarily  have  lacked  unity  and  harmony.  A 
homogeneous  product  would  be  impossible  by  such  a 
method. 

It  is  inconceivable  that  the  passages  as  a  whole  should 
have  created  a  life  such  as  we  find  in  the  Gospels ;  for  the 
total  effect  of  so  many  passages  of  varying  import  upon  a 
mind  which  had  no  organizing  principle  to  aid  it  in  selec- 
tion would  have  been  confusion  and  contradiction.  No 
harmonious  life  could  have  issued  from  such  a  process. 
The  mere  numerical  chance,  that  any  one  passage  should 
have  issued  in  the  creation  of  an  incident  without  some 
independent  principle  at  work  in  the  mind  of  the  disciple 
choosing,  is  very  small. 

General  principles,  such  as  the  desire  to  prove  the  Mes- 
siahship  of  Jesus  from  the  Old  Testament,  or  to  glorify 
His  person,  do  not  fit  the  case,  for,  conceivably,  other  pas- 
sages and  incidents  might  prove  His  Messiahship  and 
glorify  His  person  just  as  well  as  those  actually  chosen. 
The  general  hypothesis,  therefore,  that  the  life  of  Christ 
was  created  out  of  very  meager  materials  by  the  operation 
of  the  mythic  spirit  upon  the  raw  materials  of  Old  Testa- 
ment prophecy  and  popular  expectation,  is  too  heavy  to 
stand.  An  hypothesis  that  cannot  be  applied  on  the  large 
scale  to  phenomena  so  homogeneous  as  the  life  of  Christ 
is  very  precarious  when  applied  to  specific  instances. 

A  second  remark  that  must  be  made  is  that  the  mythic 
temper  works  in  the  line  of  preconceived   notions.     No 

1  For  a  list  of  passages  Messianically  applied,  see  Edersheim,  Z.  and  T. 
/.  J/.,  vol.  ii,  Appendix  ix. 


24  GOSPEL   NARRATIVES 

sane  mind,  however  enthusiastic  and  uncritical,  will  imag- 
ine incidents  in  contradiction  to  its  own  cherished  convic- 
tions. No  normal  mind,  however  blindly  idolatrous  in 
the  worship  of  a  hero,  would  imagine  events  for  the  adorn- 
ment of  his  personality  which,  according  to  the  accepted 
standard  of  his  time,  are  considered  disgraceful.  For 
example,  an  enthusiastic  Japanese  student  of  history  not 
long  ago  propounded  the  theoiy  that  the  Mikados  were  of 
Korean  ancestry.  His  statement  was  met  with  a  storm  of 
indignant  protest,  and  punishment  was  meted  out  to  his 
reckless  and  impertinent  iconoclasm.  It  is  not  to  be 
believed  that  any  Japanese  would  deliberately  invent  such 
an  hypothesis  as  the  one  outlined  above  in  order  to  honor 
his  emperor  and  exalt  him  before  his  countrymen.  No 
more  would  the  friends  of  Jesus,  however  blindly  enthu- 
siastic, be  tempted  to  invent  an  incident  for  His  life  which, 
in  the  common  judgment  of  the  day,  would  be  considered 
disgraceful. 

The  bearing  of  these  observations  upon  the  question  at 
issue  will  be  seen  a  little  later.  Our  next  step  is  to 
examine  the  theory  in  the  light  of  the  specific  passages  in 
question. 

The  passage  from  Jeremiah,1  which  Matthew  applies  to 
the  slaughter  of  the  Innocents,  need  not  detain  us  long. 
This  paragraph  could  not  possibly  have  suggested  the 
incident,  for  two  reasons,  either  one  of  which  would  seem 
to  be  entirely  sufficient. 

In  the  first  place,  the  passage  as  Jeremiah  originally 
wrote  it  was  a  bold  and  beautiful  figure  of  speech,  and 
nothing  more.  In  a  striking  hyperbole  he  represents 
Rachel,  then  for  centuries  asleep  in  her  quiet  tomb,  as 
weeping  over  the  slaughter  of  her  descendants,  the  pas- 
sionate sons  of  Benjamin  and  their  allies,  an  event  which 

1  Jer.  xxxi,  15. 


OLD    TESTAMENT  PROPHECIES  2$ 

took  place  near  Ramah,  Rachel's  burial  place.  The  passage 
was  purely  literary  and  figurative,  and  could  not  possibly 
be  interpreted  as  predictive.  The  incident  which  Jeremiah 
describes  and  that  which  Matthew  describes  has  but  one 
element  in  common, — the  shedding  of  blood.  In  all  other 
respects  they  are  absolutely  and  strikingly  unlike.  That 
the  one  suggested  the  other  it  is  well-nigh  impossible  to 
believe. 

In  the  second  place,  it  required  a  new  and  original  adap- 
tation of  the  figure  to  apply  it  to  any  incident  connected 
with  Bethlehem.  Rachel  is  historically  identified,  not 
with  Judah,  but  with  Benjamin.  Her  burial  place  is  uni- 
formly represented  as  being  in  the  neighborhood  of  Bethel, 
"on  the  border  of  Benjamin."1  Only  one  passage  (Gen. 
xxxv,  19)  connects  her  with  Bethlehem.  The  contradic- 
tion between  this  statement  and  the  rest  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment is  so  apparent  as  to  point  to  the  conclusion  that  the 
explanatory  formula  was  an  incorrect  marginal  note  which 
ultimately  crept  into  the  text. 

Now  the  Genesis  passage  contains  no  hint  of  the 
slaughter  (of  course),  nor  any  hint  of  Ramah,  while  Jere- 
miah says  nothing  of  Bethlehem,  but  indicates  Ramah  in 
Benjamin  as  the  locality  of  the  slaughter.  If  the  incident 
told  by  Matthew  was  created  by  the  influence  of  the  Old 
Testament,  it  was  done  through  a  fusion  of  these  two  con- 
tradictory passages  into  one  impression.  The  writer  was 
impressed  by  the  locality  element  of  the  Genesis  passage, 
and  by  the  slaughter  element  of  the  Jeremiah  passage, 
so  as  to  transfer  the  slaughter  spoken  of  by  Jeremiah  to 
the  place  spoken  of  in  Genesis,  while  he  yet  retains  the 
word  Ramah,  which  marks  the  contradiction  between  the 
two.     This  is  an  altogether  impossible  supposition. 

We  next  come  to  the  third  passage  in  the  preliminary 

1  1  Sam.  x,  2. 


26  GOSPEL   NARRATIVES 

section  of  Matthew, — the  quotation  from  Hosea  xi,  I, 
applied  to  the  flight  into  Egypt,  "  Out  of  Egypt  did  I  call 
my  son."  The  peculiarity  in  this  quotation  is  that  it  is 
taken  from  the  Hebrew  text  and  differs  from  the  Septua- 
gint  in  the  use  of  the  singular  noun.  The  difference  is 
not  accidental.  In  it  consists  the  entire  applicability  of 
the  quotation.  The  writer  was  compelled  to  use  the 
Hebrew  form  in  the  singular  in  order  to  apply  it  to  Christ. 
This  fact  is  interesting  and  valuable,  because  of  the  light 
thus  thrown  upon  the  way  in  which  the  quotation  came 
into  the  text,  and  upon  the  personality  of  the  man  who 
used  it.  The  text  could  not  have  been  one  of  those 
Messianic  texts  floating  in  the  common  consciousness ; 
for  in  the  form  in  which  it  was  accessible  to  the  common 
mind  it  had  no  applicability  to  the  Messiah  at  all. 

The  phrase, "  Out  of  Egypt  did  I  call  thy  children,"  could 
not  possibly  suggest  to  any  mind  that  the  Messiah,  or  any 
other  individual,  must  go  down  into  Egypt  and  come  back 
again.  It  could  be  thus  suggestive  only  in  the  Hebrew 
form  and  to  one  familiar  with  it  in  that  form.  In  addition 
to  this,  it  is  evident  that  Avhatever  suggested  the  flight  into 
Egypt  must  also  have  suggested  the  incident  of  Herod's 
murderous  purpose  which  caused  the  flight,  and  also 
the  visit  of  the  Magi,  with  which  the  entire  incident  is 
bound  up. 

Either  the  passage  from  Hosea  suggested  the  entire 
nexus  of  events  with  which  it  is  connected,  in  which  case 
it  must  be  acknowledged  to  be  one  of  the  most  pregnant 
texts  of  prophecy,  or  else  the  text  simply  suggested  the 
central  incident  of  the  flight  into  Egypt,  and  the  writer 
invented  all  the  rest  to  account  for  the  flight, — a  rather 
elaborate  and  unbelievable  hypothesis. 

It  is  unreasonable  to  suppose  that  it  should  have  started 
up  such  imaginative  activity  in  a  mind  sufficiently  trained 


OLD    TESTAMENT  PROPHECIES  2J 

to  discriminate   between   versions,   and  cold   enough  to 
choose  so  carefully  the  version  by  which  to  be  moved. 

It  may  reasonably  be  objected  that  this  argument  is 
wasted  because  no  one  would  seriously  urge  that  this 
particular  passage  created  the  incident  with  which  it  is 
connected.  The  analysis,  however,  has  its  bearing  upon 
other  texts  far  more  central  and  important. 

We  next  take  up  the  passage  from  Micah,1  which  is 
applied  to  the  birth  of  Jesus  at  Bethlehem.  This  text  is 
most  confidently  pointed  to  as  evidence  of  the  power  of  a 
Messianic  text  to  create  the  expectation  out  of  which  has 
issued  a  fictitious  series  of  events.  The  questioning  of  the 
Jewish  leaders  by  Herod  drew  forth  the  response  that  the 
Messiah  should  be  born  at  Bethlehem.  This  points  to  a 
widespread  and  prevalent  notion  that  the  Messiah  should 
be  manifested  in  the  City  of  David.  This  in  course  of 
time,  developed  the  conviction  that  Christ,  whom  they 
confidently  believed  to  be  the  Messiah,  was  actually  born 
there.  What  more  natural  than  that  such  a  notice  should 
by  "  dogmatic  reflection  "  be  developed  into  the  conviction 
that  the  event  had  actually  thus  occurred  ?  Keim  thinks 
it  a  very  simple  case. 

A  little  closer  study,  however,  will  show  that  it  is  not 
so  simple  as  it  at  first  appears.  In  the  first  place,  how 
did  it  come  about  that  any  Jew  believed  Jesus  to  be  the 
Messiah  ?  Given  the  faith  that  Jesus  actually  was  the 
Messiah,  the  belief  that  He  was  born  at  Bethlehem  might 
arise,  but  the  initial  faith,  which  is  the  mainspring  of  the 
entire  process,  is  one  of  the  things  to  be  accounted  for. 
Would  not  the  birth  at  Bethlehem  be  one  of  the  elements 
in  the  body  of  evidence  to  prove  that  Jesus  was  the 
Messiah  ?  If  there  was  a  widespread  conviction  that  the 
Messiah  must  be  born  at  Bethlehem,  strong  enough  to 

1  Micah  v,  2. 


28  GOSPEL   NARRATIVES 

overbear  the  actual  facts  and  create  the  conviction  that 
He  was  born  there,  when  He  was  not,  it  was  certainly- 
strong  enough  to  lead  men,  at  least  men  of  a  skeptical 
temper,  to  investigate  the  question  •before  giving  their 
allegiance  to  the  candidate  for  the  Messiahship.  We 
know  certainly  that  the  question  came  up.  Nathanael's 
sneer  at  Nazareth,  and  the  argument  of  the  Jews  that  no 
prophet  could  come  out  of  Galilee,  is  the  negative  state- 
ment, and  the  question  of  the  objectors,  "  Hath  not  the 
scripture  said  that  the  Christ  cometh  of  the  seed  of  David, 
and  from  Bethlehem,  the  village  where  David  was  ?  " 1  the 
positive  statement  of  the  requirement. 

Both  positively  and  negatively,  this  argument  was 
urged  against  Jesus,  and  His  disciples  were  compelled  to 
make  answer.  If  it  be  objected  that  the  argument  of  the 
Jews  against  Jesus  on  this  ground  led  to  the  invention  of 
the  story  of  the  Bethlehem  birth,  the  answer  is  easy: 
The  theory  implies  deliberate  dishonesty  on  the  part  of 
the  disciples,  and  is  therefore  absurd. 

There  is  still  more  to  be  said  on  the  subject  of  this 
prophecy.  There  is  a  certain  distinct  and  individual 
atmosphere  about  the  passage,  to  which  a  mind  saturated 
with  the  spirit  of  the  Old  Testament  could  not  fail  to  be 
sensitive.  One  need  not  hesitate  to  say  that  the  record 
of  happenings  at  Bethlehem  is  not  in  accord  with  the 
outstanding  features  of  the  prophecy  as  any  ordinary 
interpreter,  not  especially  illuminated,  would  understand 
it.  The  prophet  contrasts,  and  with  high  lights  and  deep 
shadows  draws  his  picture,  the  humble  standing  and  rural 
situation  of  Bethlehem  with  the  exalted  position  and  far- 
reaching  authority  of  the  Ruler  who  should  issue  from 
her.  The  little  town  of  Bethlehem  should  be  distinguished 
by  the  appearance  of  the  great  Governor  in  her  midst 

1  John  vii,  42. 


OLD    TESTAMENT  PROPHECIES  2Q 

This  is  easily  applicable  to  Christ,  as  seen  in  the  light 
of  after  history ;  but  is  there  anything  in  it  which  would 
lead  a  Jewish  interpreter  to  imagine  the  incidents  recorded 
in  the  Infancy  narrative  ?  The  passage  clearly  points  to 
the  beginning  of  the  Great  Ruler's  life  at  Bethlehem,  but 
it  points,  also,  and  superficially  considered,  just  as  clearly, 
to  a  royal  birth  under  royal  conditions.  The  text  was  one 
of  those  which  helped  to  create  that  ideal  of  a  political 
and  conquering  Messiah  who  should  come  visibly  robed 
in  the  garments  of  authority,  in  view  of  which  the  claims 
made  on  behalf  of  the  humble  Nazarene  were  contemptu- 
ously rejected  by  the  Jewish  people  as  a  whole. 

How  could  Micah's  stately  description  be  applied  to  a 
Child,  even  if  born  at  Bethlehem  and  of  David's  stock, 
of  whom  such  things  as  these  could  be  said :  That  He 
happened  to  be  born  at  Bethlehem  because  He,  like  His 
nation  and  His  family,  was  subject  to  the  detested  rule 
of  Rome ;  that  His  mother  was  so  devoid  of  influence  as 
to  be  compelled,  because  the  khan  was  crowded,  to  bring 
forth  her  Child  in  a  stable ;  that  she  was  so  utterly  power- 
less that  the  wise  men  who  visited  her  Child  from  afar  had 
to  skulk  away  in  secret  flight  from  the  new-found  King ; 
and  that  He  Himself  was  driven  forth  from  His  country 
merely  by  the  uplifted  hand  of  the  hated  Herod  ?  Strange 
fulfillment  these  details  furnish  of  the  prophetic  sentence, 
which  speaks  of  the  advent  of  a  world  Ruler  whose 
goings  forth  have  been  of  old  from  the  days  of  eternity. 

It  is  fair  to  say  that,  while  the  mere  fact  that  Jesus  was 
born  at  Bethlehem  accords  with  the  prophecy,  the  circum- 
stances and  surroundings  of  it  as  described  in  the  New 
Testament  utterly  contradict  the  passage  as  generally 
interpreted  by  the  Jews  of  Jesus'  time.  It  could  not  pos- 
sibly have  led  in  any  naturally  constituted  mind  to  the 
construction  of  the  incidents  with  which  it  is  connected. 


30  GOSPEL   NARRATIVES 

We  now  come  to  the  crucial  passage  of  the  section, — 
the  prophecy  from  Isaiah,1  which  is  applied  to  the  virgin 
birth.  If  one  were  ever  so  much  disposed  to  believe  that 
prophecies  under  certain  circumstances  might  give  rise  to 
imaginary  incidents  concerning  Him,  there  is  much  in  the 
present  instance  to  make  one  pause  before  accepting  the 
hypothesis.  Given  a  blind  and  not  too  scrupulous  enthu- 
siasm for  Jesus,  and  an  equally  faulty  use  of  Old  Testa- 
ment passages,  incidents  such  as  miracles  of  power 
might  conceivably  be  imagined:  But  the  difficulties  in 
the  way  of  accepting  the  virgin  birth  as  one  of  these  are 
insuperable.  In  this  case  the  hypothesis  grants  nothing 
for  the  process  save  the  Christian  enthusiasm  working 
upon  the  Messianic  text.  There  can  be  no  germ  of 
incident  lending  itself  to  fond  exaggeration  which  has 
issued  in  the  doctrine  of  a  miraculous  birth.  It  is  either 
a  fact  or  a  myth  created  in  toto  out  of  the  prophecy  by 
the  heated  imagination  of  admirers  of  Jesus.  By  the 
hypothesis,  there  is  not  even  a  tradition  to  defend  nor  an 
a  priori  dogmatic  thesis  to  maintain. 

Granting  for  the  time  that  among  the  disciples  of  Jesus 
there  were  some  sufficiently  enslaved  to  their  own  imagina- 
tions to  allow  themselves  to  be  worked  upon  by  isolated 
Messianic  texts,  one  would  suppose  that  in  this  instance 
the  slightest  exercise  of  sober  second  thought  would 
have  rendered  such  an  exceedingly  dubious  process 
entirely  impossible.  Even  among  the  most  blindly 
enthusiastic  of  those  with  whom  the  idea  originated, 
there  ought  to  have  been  discernment  enough  to  perceive 
the  danger  to  faith  lurking  in  the  doctrine.  There  is  no 
evidence  to  show  that  among  the  Hebrews  of  Jesus'  time 
any  general  expectation  existed  that  the  Messiah  was  to 
be  virgin  born.     There  is  no  evidence  outside  Matthew's 

1  Isa.    vii,  14, 


OLD    TESTAMENT  PROPHECIES  3 1 

Gospel  that  the  passage  from  Isaiah  had  created  such  an 
impression.  The  interpretation  must  have  been  as  original 
as  the  doctrine.  The  mere  shock  of  surprise  involved  in 
a  theory  so  alien  to  ordinary  Hebrew  thought  as  a  virgin 
birth  must  have  been  a  dash  upon  the  white  heat  of 
enthusiasm  hard  to  resist.  It  is  very  difficult  to  under- 
stand how  any  group  of  Jewish  Christians  could  have 
been  prevailed  upon  by  the  influence  of  a  single  text  to 
formulate  so  novel,  and,  according  to  their  ways  of  think- 
ing, so  forbidding,  a  doctrine  as  the  virgin  birth. 

But  the  case  is  still  more  difficult  than  this.  The  pas- 
sage in  question  was  quoted  from  the  Septuagint  version, 
which  translates  the  Hebrew  word  *WJ2  by  the  Greek 
TzapOevoz. 

The  usual  contention  of  negative  criticism  is  that  this  is 
"an  inadmissible  translation."1  If  this  contention  is 
justified,  the  case  of  those  who  hold  that  the  prophecy 
created  the  incident  goes  utterly  by  the  board ;  for  in  that 
case,  the  text  could  have  led  to  the  creation  of  the  doc- 
trine only  in  minds  having  no  strong  prepossession  against 
the  doctrine,  and  without  the  critical  apparatus  to  study 
the  relationship  of  the  passage  in  the  Greek  translation  to 
the  original  text. 

No  man  having  a  natural  prejudice  against  the  theory 
of  a  virgin  birth  could  have  been  so  tyrannized  over  by  a 
single  doubtful  passage,  unless  incapable  through  igno- 
rance of  appealing  to  the  authoritative  text  of  the  passage 
in  question. 

As  we  have  already  seen,  the  author  of  the  preliminary 
section  of  Matthew's  Gospel  was  at  home  in  the  Hebrew 
text. 2     He  was  in  the  habit  of  setting  one  version  over 

xIt  is  held  that  the  Hebrew  word  simply  means  "a  young  woman  of 
marriageable  age." 

2  See  Weiss,  In.  to  N.  T.,  vol.  ii,  p.  275. 


32  GOSPEL   NARRATIVES 

against  the  other.  In  his  use  of  the  passage  from  Hosea 
he  set  aside  the  popular  version  as  unsuited  to  his  pur- 
pose, and  chose  the  Hebrew.  In  the  present  instance, 
there  is  no  occasion  for  doubt  that  he  chose  the  Sep- 
tuagint  for  the  same  reason.  He  could  not  have  been 
ignorant  of  the  difference  between  the  versions.  While  he 
evidently  differed  from  those  who  believed  that  the  Sep- 
tuagint  form  is  an  inadmissible  translation,  he  must  have 
known  that  a  translation  shutting  out  the  virgin  idea  alto- 
gether would  be  perfectly  natural  and  legitimate.  He 
must,  therefore,  have  had  strong  reasons  for  preferring  the 
Septuagint  form. 

Furthermore,  the  author  of  the  section  was  intensely 
Jewish.  The  entire  Messianic  conception  which  underlies 
the  Gospel,  and  not  least  of  all  the  earlier  part  of  it,  is  pro- 
foundly Hebraic.  The  author  must  have  shared  the  feel- 
ings and  prejudices  of  the  Hebrews  of  the  Old  Testament 
type,  of  whom  not  a  few  lived  in  Christ's  time.  Among 
these  intense  feelings,  not  the  least  powerful  was  a  concep- 
tion of  the  sacredness  of  marriage,  and  abhorrence  of  all 
heathen  notions  of  physical  deities  and  incarnations.  Both 
these  prejudices,  which  were  intense  and  unyielding,  must 
have  combined  to  create  in  the  mind  of  every  well-taught 
Hebrew  a  strong  bias  against  the  doctrine  of  an  incarna- 
tion of  the  Messiah  by  birth  from  a  virgin,  very  hard 
indeed  to  overcome.  There  is  indubitable  evidence  in  the 
section  before  us  that  the  author  shared  in  this  feeling. 
Had  there  been  nothing  to  force  him  to  admit  the  state- 
ment into  his  story,  save  only  a  doubtful  interpretation  of 
this  one  passage,  his  mental  bias  would  have  found  an 
escape,  through  another  rendering  of  the  Hebrew  text, 
easy  and  welcome. 1 

1  For  the  Jewish  position  on  the  question  of  the  translation  of  the  pas- 
sage, see  Justin,  Dial.,  cap.  lxvii. 


OLD    TESTAMENT  PROPHECIES  33 

We  have  now  passed  in  review  the  chief  prophetic  pas- 
sages quoted  in  the  section,  and  it  has  become  clear  that 
the  theory  in  question  does  not  hold  in  any  single  instance. 
It  is  impossible,  in  the  light  of  the  facts  fairly  interpreted, 
to  maintain  that  any  one  of  them  created  the  incident  with 
which  it  is  connected.  In  most  instances  the  connection 
is  so  figurative  and  ideal  as  to  compel  one  to  the  belief 
that  the  passages  were  searched  for  by  a  writer  keen  to 
adorn  his  narrative  and  to  illustrate  its  incidents  by  pro- 
phetic sentences  that  served  in  his  mind  to  bind  the  vision 
of  the  prophets  and  the  life  of  the  Christ  together. 

But,  it  is  objected,  if  the  connection  between  the  pas- 
sages used  by  the  author  of  Matthew's  Gospel  and  the 
incidents  with  which  he  unites  them  is  thus  figurative, 
ideal,  illustrative,  what  is  left  of  the  fulfillment  of  prophecy? 
What  remains  of  the  connection  between  the  old  covenant 
and  the  new,  and  of  the  argument  of  the  Gospel  for  the 
Messiahship  of  Jesus  ?  Much,  in  every  way ;  but  it  is  not 
to  be  looked  for  chiefly  in  merely  incidental  resemblances 
between  the  words  of  prophets  and  the  life  of  Christ. 1 

Let  us  argue  the  question  broadly  and  candidly.  Is 
it  conceivable  that  Matthew  should  base  his  argument 
for  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus  on  incidental  and  almost 
accidental  resemblances  between  predictions  and  events, 
such  as  he  brings  together  in  some  of  the  passages  quoted 
from  the  Old  Testament  ?  Is  it  possible  that  a  man 
intelligent  enough  to  write  or  edit  the  Gospel  of  Matthew 
was  not  as  well  aware  as  we  that  the  real  claim  of  Jesus 
to  be  the  Messiah  lay  in  His  moral  and  spiritual  tran- 
scendence ?  He  could  not  have  been  ignorant  that  birth, 
even  in  David's  city  and  of  David's  stock,  could  not  have 

1  For  exposition  of  this  whole  question  of  Messianic  Fulfillment,  see 
Beecher,  Prophets  and  Promise,  chap.  xvii. 
3 


34  GOSPEL   NARRATIVES 

availed  to  mark  a  man  of  faulty  temper  and  insignificant 
personality  as  the  promised  Messiah.  To  be  first  born 
of  the  blood  royal  is  enough  to  mark  a  man  as  Czar  of  all 
the  Russias,  even  though  he  be  of  epileptic  habit  and  feeble 
mind,  but  not  so  the  anointed  of  God.  Birth  at  Bethlehem 
and  of  the  lineage  of  David  could  not  constitute  Jesus  the 
Messiah,  save  as  these  were  symbols  of  the  Divine  choice 
and  anointing  fulfilled  in  His  commanding  personal 
majesty  and  wisdom. 

The  merest  outline  of  the  author's  experience  is  enough 
to  indicate  how  he  arrived  at  faith  in  the  Messiahship  of 
Jesus. x  His  first  contact  with  Jesus  was  as  one  of  a  com- 
pany, who  heard  Him  speak,  and  saw  Him  work.  He 
was  drawn  to  Him  by  something  out  of  the  common  in  His 
words  and  works.  He  was  drawn  more  and  more  power- 
fully to  Him  by  an  increasing  apprehension  of  His  wisdom 
and  His  power.  The  author  of  this  Gospel  was  drawn 
even  more  by  His  wisdom  than  by  His  power.  But  it 
was  His  personal  quality,  His  individuality  as  concretely 
manifested  in  His  words  and  life,  that  led  this  man  to 
believe  in  Him.  The  correspondence  between  the  life  of 
Jesus  and  the  Old  Testament  was  an  afterthought,  a  part 
of  his  interpretation ;  but  the  primary  fact,  the  original 
dynamic  of  his  discipleship,  was  simply  Jesus  Himself. 
He  did  not  come  to  Jesus  through  the  prophecies ;  he 
:  came  to  the  prophecies  through  Jesus.  In  attempting  to 
commend  Jesus  to  his  countiymen,  it  was  natural  and 
inevitable  that  he  should  turn  to  prophecy,  and  it  is  also 
natural,  that,  while  he  drew  the  character  of  Jesus  in  such 
a  way  that  they  could  see  that  He  was  one  with  the 
Majestic  figure  who  fills  the  prophetic  page,  he  should 
call  attention  to  incidental  resemblances  in  His  life  to 
familiar  Messianic  expectations.     And  he  knew  exactly 

:Cf.  Harnack,  History  of  Dogma,  (Eng.  Tran.),  vol.  i,  p.  133. 


OLD    TESTAMENT  PROPHECIES  35 

what  he  was  doing,  and  why  he  did  it.  There  can  be  no 
mistake  in  attributing  to  ancient  writers  a  fair  share  of 
intelligence,  and  a  reasonable  amount  of  common  infor- 
mation. Perhaps  wisdom  may  die  with  us,  but  it  is  too 
much  to  suppose  that  it  was  also  born  with  us.  In  the 
present  instance,  there  is  a  reason  to  believe  that  the 
author  is  quite  as  intellectual  and  well  balanced  as  many 
of  his  critics.  I  cannot  believe,  in  view  of  the  facts,  that  he 
was  ignorant  of  the  context  and  the  primary  meanings  of 
the  passages  which  he  quotes  from  the  Old  Testament,  or 
that  he  means  to  claim  for  many  of  the  passages,  which 
he  introduces  with  the  formula,  "  Then  was  fulfilled, "  or 
"that  it  might  be  fulfilled,"  anything  more  than  any 
intelligent  man  would  claim  for  interesting  and  helpful 
illustrations  of  his  theme. 

For  example,  is  it  conceivable  that  the  author  of  the 
Gospel  of  Matthew  was  ignorant  that  the  passage  from 
Jeremiah  concerning  the  weeping  of  Rachel  had  in  it  no 
real  and  definite  predictive  element ;  that  in  its  first  use  it 
was  a  figure  of  speech  and  that  in  his  application  of  it  to 
Christ,  it  could  have,  as  in  Jeremiah's  use,  only  a  figurative 
and  illustrative  meaning? 

This  same  illustrative  use  of  Old  Testament  prophecies 
is  clearly  seen  in  the  last  passage  of  the  section,  of  which 
we  have  made  no  previous  mention, — the  text  applied  to 
Jesus  of  Nazareth, — "  He  shall  be  called  a  Nazarene.  " 1 
This  is  not  a  direct  quotation  from  any  known  prophecy, 
and  is  obscure  and  difficult.  The  explanation,  which 
finds  in  the  word  translated  Nazarene  a  vague  connection 
with  the  "  branch "  prophecy  of  Isaiah,  is  probably  as 
nearly  correct  as  any.  It  is  evidently  meant  for  nothing 
more  than  a  mere  resemblance,  really  a  play  upon  sim- 
ilarly sounding  words  used  for  purposes  of  illustration, 

1  Matt,  ii,  23. 


36  GOSPEL  NARRATIVES 

and  yet  it  is  introduced  by  the  formula,  "  That  it  might  be 
fulfilled." 

Dr.  Edersheim  maintains  that  the  Hebrew  method  of 
finding  in  prophecy  anything  that  the  words  may  be 
interpreted  to  mean,  whether  that  meaning  lies  within  the 
original  intention  of  the  prophet  or  not,  is  legitimate.  It 
may  be,  but  I  see  no  evidence  that  the  New  Testament 
writers  allowed  themselves  any  such  liberty. 

They  certainly  had  the  right  to  use  the  Old  Testament 
as  a  storehouse  of  illustrative  material,  but  that  they 
strained  Old  Testament  passages  to  make  them  mean 
something  they  did  not  mean,  in  order  to  prove  something 
which  they  were  not  intended  to  prove,  is  a  statement 
which  requires  very  clear  evidence  to  support  it,  and  that 
evidence  is  not  forthcoming. 

A  close  scrutiny  of  the  Immanual  passage  which  is 
brought  into  connection  with  the  birth  of  Jesus  will  show 
how  clear  and  true  Matthew's  idea  of  exegesis  was.  The 
original  meaning  of  the  message  as  spoken  to  Ahaz  is 
clearly  and  beautifully  expressed  by  George  Adam  Smith  : 
"The  general  significance  apart  from  the  name  Immanuel 
is  that  '  before  a  certain  Child,  whose  birth  is  vaguely  but 
solemnly  intimated  in  the  near  future,  shall  have  come  to 
years  of  discretion,  the  results  of  the  choice  of  Ahaz  shall 
be  manifest.  Judah  shall  be  devastated  and  her  people 
have  sunk  to  the  most  rudimentary  means  of  living.'  "  1 

Here  most  radical  critics  stop  in  the  interpretation  of 
the  passage.  But  this  leaves  out  of  consideration  the 
most  distinctive  word  in  the  passage, — the  name  of  this 
child  Immanuel, — and  we  are  compelled  to  agree  with 
Dr.  Smith,  "  that  it  is  quite  impossible  to  dissociate  so 
solemn  an  announcement  by  Jehovah  to  the  house  of 
David  of  the  birth  of  a  Child,  so  highly  named,  from  that 

1  Isa.  vii,  15. 


OLD    TESTAMENT  PROPHECIES  2)7 

expectation  of  the  coming  of  a  Glorious  Prince,  which 
was  current  in  this  royal  family  since  the  days  of  its 
founder.  Mysterious  and  abrupt  as  the  intimations  of 
Immanuel's  birth  may  seem  to  us  at  this  juncture,  we 
cannot  forget  that  it  fell  from  Isaiah's  lips  upon  hearts 
which  cherished  as  their  dearest  hope  the  appearance  of 
a  glorious  descendant  of  David,  and  were  just  now  the 
more  sensitive  to  this  hope  that  both  David's  city  and 
David's  dynasty  were  in  peril.  Could  Ahaz  possibly 
understand  by  Immanuel  any  other  child  than  that  Prince 
whose  coming  was  the  inalienable  hope  of  His  house  ? 

But  if  we  are  right  in  supposing  that  Ahaz  made  this 
identification  or  had  even  the  dimmest  presage  of  it,  then 
we  understand  the  full  force  of  the  sign. 

Ahaz  by  his  unbelief  had  not  only  disestablished  him- 
self (ver.  9),  but  he  had  mortgaged  the  hope  of  Israel.  In 
the  flood  of  disaster  which  his  fatal  resolution  would 
bring  upon  the  land  it  mattered  little  what  was  to  happen 
to  himself.  Isaiah  does  not  trouble  now  to  mention  any 
penalty  for  Ahaz.  But  his  resolve's  exceeding  pregnancy 
of  peril  is  brought  home  to  the  king  by  the  assurance 
that  it  will  devastate  all  the  golden  future  and  must  disin- 
herit the  promised  king.  The  Child  who  is  Israel's  hope 
is  born ;  He  receives  the  divine  name,  and  that  is  all  of 
salvation  or  glory  suggested.  He  grows  up,  not  to  a 
throne  or  the  majesty  which  the  seventy-second  Psalm 
pictures, — offerings  of  Sheba's  and  Sheba's  kings,  the 
corn  of  the  land  shaking  like  the  fruit  of  Lebanon,  while 
they  of  the  city  flourish  like  the  grass  of  the  earth, — but  to 
the  food  of  privation,  to  the  sight  of  His  country  razed  by 
His  enemies  into  one  vast  common,  fit  only  for  pasture,  to 
loneliness  and  suffering.  Amid  the  general  desolation 
His  figure  vanishes  from  our  sight  and  only  His  name 
remains  to  haunt,  with  its  infinite    melancholy  of  what 


38  GOSPEL   NARRATIVES 

might  have  been,  the  thorn-choked  vineyards  and  grass- 
grown  courts  of  Judah."  ! 

In  the  light  of  sane  and  intelligent  exegesis,  Matthew's 
use  of  this  passage  with  reference  to  Christ  is  justified. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  word  of  the  prophet  to  Ahaz 
was  a  repetition  of  the  promise  made  to  Abraham,  to 
Moses,  and  to  David,  with  the  solemn  warning  attached 
that  by  his  willfulness  and  sin  he  may  alienate  the  empire 
of  the  promised  deliverer.2 

We  shall  come  to  the  question  of  the  relationship  of 
this  passage  to  the  virgin  birth  a  little  later,  but  in  its 
general  application  to  Christ,  Matthew  shows  not  only 
correct  understanding  of  the  passage,  but  deep  insight 
into  its  application. 

No  intelligent  understanding  of  the  relationship  between 
Old  Testament  prophecy  and  the  life  of  Christ  is  possible 
without  giving  careful  heed  to  the  chief  argument  for  His 
Messiahship,  which  underlies  the  entire  New  Testament — 
that  is  Christ's  intellectual  and  moral  greatness  and  His 
spiritual  preeminence. 

This,  in  a  sense,  is  the  only  vital  question.  We  need 
care  only  for  this.  Was  Jesus  the  moral  fulfillment  of 
the  ideal  of  the  prophets  ?  This  question  moves  in  a 
region  above  controversy  about  the  minutiae  of  exegesis 
— either  in  the  Old  Testament  or  the  New,  is  untouched 
by  critical  theories  and  can  be  answered  only  by  an 
appeal  to  the  facts  as  exhibited  in  the  life  of  Jesus.  Upon 
their  proof  that  Jesus  was  fit  to  be  the  Messiah  New 
Testament  writers  fearlessly  stake  their  credit.  That  they 
have  been  successful  in  their  efforts  to  prove  that  Jesus  is 
spiritually  worthy  to  be  the  Messiah,  is  strikingly  seen  in 
the  new  phase  upon  which,  in  late  years,  the  entire  con- 

1  G.  A.  Smith,  Isaiah,  vol.  i,  pp.  1 15  ff. 

J  See  Beecher,  Prophets  and  Promise,  p.  333. 


OLD    TESTAMENT  PROPHECIES  39 

troversy  has  entered.  The  question  is  no  longer  whether 
Jesus  is  great  enough  to  be  the  fulfillment  of  Messianic 
prophecy,  but  whether  Messianic  prophecy  is  great 
enough  to  claim  Jesus  as  its  fulfillment  The  entire 
Messianic  conception  is  condemned  by  some  as  an 
unworthy  and  inadequate  representation  of  Jesus. 

It  is  alleged  that  by  comparison  with  the  world-wide 
and  even  cosmic  mission  of  Christ,  as  seen  in  the  unfold- 
ing of  Christian  thought  and  life,  the  Messianic  ideas  of 
the  Jewish  nation  sink  into  utter  insignificance.  It  mat- 
ters not  whether  the  prophecies  are  fulfilled;  they  are 
not  of  sufficient  importance  to  merit  much  attention. 
The  most  that  can  be  granted  is  that  the  world-wide 
career  of  Jesus  had  its  historic  inception  in  the  Messianic 
idea.  This,  however,  was  merely  the  temporary  sheath, 
which  was  soon  outgrown  and  abandoned  by  the  expand- 
ing Kingdom  of  the  Christ.  The  whole  question,  there- 
fore, of  the  fulfillment  of  prophecy  is  settled  by  relegating 
it  to  a  place  among  the  unconsidered  trifles,  which  may 
safely  be  disregarded  by  the  student  of  Christ's  life  and 
teaching. 

It  seems  to  me  that  this  notion  is  to  be  combated  with 
all  earnestness.  It  is  an  incorrect  interpretation  of  the 
Old  Testament ;  it  is  opposed  to  Jesus'  own  conception  of 
His  life  and  work ;  it  leads  to  a  dangerous  underestimate 
of  the  importance  of  history.  The  Messianic  ideal  as 
popularly  interpreted  by  many  of  the  Jews  of  Jesus'  time 
was  narrow,  provincial,  political,  and  unworthy.  Jesus 
met  it  with  unflinching  opposition  and  refused  on  every 
occasion  to  be  bound  by  it.  But  this  leaves  untouched 
the  fact  that  the  Messianic  hope,  as  uttered  by  the 
prophets  themselves  and  as  interpreted  by  Jesus,  is  of 
unmeasured  historic  importance  and  of  perennial  worth. 

In  it  the  spiritual  longings  of  the  whole  world,  often 


40  GOSPEL  NARRATIVES 

unconscious,  chiefly  inarticulate,  came  to  voice  and  utter- 
ance. The  interpretation  which  it  offers  of  history  and 
of  human  life  overleaps  continually  the  boundaries  of 
national  exclusiveness,  and  demands  for  its  satisfaction  and 
fulfillment  nothing  less  than  a  world-wide  kingdom — a 
universal  brotherhood  of  man. 

The  Ruler,  who  in  outline  and  anticipation  it  describes 
and  promises,  is  adequate  to  the  kingdom  which  He  is  to 
establish.  The  Messiah  of  the  prophets  is  none  other  and 
no  less  than  the  revealer  of  God,  and  the  redeemer  of  men. 

In  order  that  we  may  see  clearly  the  real  significance 
of  the  Messianic  hope  of  Israel,  let  us  briefly  pass  in  review 
the  leading  features  of  prophetism  as  it  unfolds  in  the  suc- 
cessive teachings  of  the  Old  Testament.1 

In  order  to  get  some  adequate  conception  of  the  mean- 
ing of  this  unique  national  hope  it  is  scarcely  needful  to  do 
more  than  to  examine  the  very  first  utterance  of  the  great 
promise  to  Abraham :  "  Now  the  Lord  said  unto  Abram, 
Get  thee  out  of  thy  country,  and  from  thy  kindred,  and 
from  thy  father's  house . . .  and  I  will  make  of  thee  a  great 
nation,  and  I  will  bless  thee,  and  make  thy  name  great; 
and  thou  shalt  be  a  blessing :  and  I  will  bless  them  that  bless 
thee,  and  him  that  curseth  thee  will  I  curse ;  and  in  thee 
shall  all  the  families  of  the  earth  be  blessed."  2 

This  passage  and  the  parallel  texts  exhibit  certain  strik- 
ing facts. 

It  contains  a  promise  of  posterity  which  shall  be  per- 
manent and  shall  include  a  nation  and  a  federation  of 
nations  in  which  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  shall  be 
blessed.  This  promise  had  a  religious  value  to  Abraham 
because  it  brought  him  into  relationship  with  the  living 


1  See  Beecher,  The  Prophets  and  the  Promise,  Part  II,  pp.  175,  sea. 
*Gen.  xii,  1-3.    Cf.  xviii,  18  ;  xxii,  18  ;  xxvi,  4  ;  xxviii,  14. 


OLD    TESTAMENT  PROPHECIES  4 1 

God,1  but  the  promise  made  to  him  passed  beyond  him- 
self to  his  children,  and  beyond  them  to  the  "  nations  of  the 
earth."  The  universalistic  note  was  struck  in  the  very 
first  delivery  of  the  message.  This  message  was  repeated 
several  times  in  Genesis,  and  each  time  the  emphasis  upon 
the  inclusion  within  the  promise  of  all  mankind  form  the 
climax  of  an  ascending  series  of  specifications.  It  is  a 
promise  that  "  Abraham  and  his  seed  shall  be  eternally 
Yahweh's  own  people  for  the  benefit  of  the  nations,"  and 
an  intelligent  man  of  patriarchal  times  would  expect  that 
the  events  included  under  it  would  still  be  in  progress, 
whatever  their  nature,  hundreds  of  years  in  the  future.2 

In  the  era  of  the  Exodus  the  promise  made  to  Abraham 
was  still  looked  upon  as  operative,  and  the  new  covenant 
publicly  entered  into  more  than  once  is  thought  of  as  the 
perpetuation  of  the  covenant  with  Abraham. 

The  people  were  to  be  the  Lord's  people,  a  priest-nation 
for  the  sake  of  all  mankind.3 

In  David's  time,4  the  same  promise  was  repeated  with 
the  same  emphasis  upon  the  universality*  of  the  promise. 
David  should  have  as  his  successors  an  endless  line  of 
kings,  one  of  whom  should  build  the  temple,  while  through- 
out the  whole  succession  should  be  fulfilled  the  promise 
made  to  Abraham.  In  the  prophets  after  David,  this  faith 
had  risen  to  a  sublime  doctrine  that  the  Lord  had  made 
Israel  His  peculiar  people ;  had  vested  this  relation  in  the 
royal  line  of  David;  and  had  done  this  for  the  purpose  of 
blessing  mankind.     The  promises  had  been  unfolding  for 

1  See  G.  A.  Smith,  Hist.  Geog.  Holy  Land,  p.  33. 

1  Beecher,  Prophets  and  Promise  ;  Bruce,  Apologetics,  p.  195- 

3  Ex.  vi,  7  ;  xxix,  45  ;  xix,  5,  6;  Lev.  xi,  45  ;  Deut.  xxviii,  9-1 1  ;  vii,  6; 
xiv,  2. 

*  2  Sam.  vii,  passim.  Cf.  with  Deut.  xii,  II  ;  iv,  7,  8  ;  Gen.  xvii,  7,  8  ; 
Deut.  xxvi,  17,  18.  Cf.  especially,  2  Sam.  vii,  17,  19  (original),  with  Gen. 
xii,  1-3. 


42  GOSPEL  NARRATIVES 

centuries  and  were  on  their  way  to  still  larger  fulfillment 
in  the  future. 

Now,  in  this  whole  prophetic  conception  there  are  a 
number  of  great  and  illuminating  ideas.  Israel  is  the 
nation  of  promise;  the  promise  is  eternal  and  irrevocable; 
the  nations  of  the  earth  have  an  interest  in  its  fulfillment. 
An  eternally  operative  promise  involves  cumulative  fulfill- 
ment, with  culminating  periods  of  fulfillment.1  In  every 
age,  it  meant  a  special  manifestation  of  God's  grace  con- 
nected with  the  past,  operative  in  the  present,  and  leading 
out  into  the  illimitable  future.  This  promise  was  always 
connected  with  sin  and  redemption  ;  it  held  true  to  right- 
eousness and  brotherhood  as  its  ruling  principle  and  ulti- 
mate ideal ;  it  was  always  connected  with  some  burning 
moral  question  of  immediate  and  pressing  importance.2 
Throughout  also,  the  living  representation  of  the  house  of 
David  was  made  trustee  and  guardian  of  the  promise. 

In  this  connection,  is  it  pertinent  to  ask  what  single  item 
in  the  noblest  and  broadest  modern  interpretation  of  the 
Kingdom  of  Heaven  is  lacking  from  Old  Testament  proph- 
etism  ?  The  contribution  which  Christianity  made  to  the 
ancient  conception  of  the  Kingdom  of  God  was  not  so 
much  in  furnishing  new  ideals  as  in  setting  the  Old  Testa- 
ment teaching  free  from  narrow  and  partial  interpretations, 
and  particularly  in  furnishing  the  dynamic  for  carrying  it 
into  action.  And  this  leads  directly  to  a  second  remark- 
able feature  of  Old  Testament  prophetism — what  may  be 
called  the  instrument  for  the  realization  of  the  promise. 
The  prophets  consistently  taught  that  the  promise  which 
had  such  connection  with  the  sacred  part,  such  bearing 
upon  the  duties  of  the  immediate  present,  and  such  infinite 

1  Beecher,  Prophets  and  Promise,  p.  376. 

2  Cf.  Bruce,  Apologetics,  p.  242. 


OLD    TESTAMENT  PROPHECIES  43 

meaning  for  the  future,  should  be  realized  through  the 
influence  of  consecrated  personality.  v' 

It  was,  first  of  all,  Israel,  the  "  seed  "  of  Abraham,1  the 
priest-nation  of  the  world — then  David  and  his  descendants 
as  the  representative  of  the  best  life  of  Israel  who  manifest 
the  Lord  to  mankind  and  bring  about  the  fulfillment  of 
the  promise.  The  bearing  of  this  promise  in  urging  both 
upon  king  and  people  faithfulness  to  Jehovah  has  been 
noted  already  in  the  Immanuel  passage.  Then  under 
various  titles  and  with  various  descriptive  details  there 
appears  the  figure  of  One,  of  the  people  and  yet  greater 
than  the  nation ;  of  the  Davidic  line,  yet  greater  than 
David,  human  and  yet  bearing  Divine  attributes,  who  is 
to  be  the  trustee  of  the  promise,  its  consummate  embodi- 
ment, and  the  adequate  instrument  of  its  fulfillment. 

A  catalogue  of  His  titles  will  show  what  a  wonderful 
conception  it  was  that  filled  the  minds  of  the  later  prophets. 

The  familiar  word  Messiah  is  used  a  few  times,  chiefly 
to  "  denote  David,  or  the  reigning  king  of  his  line,  thought 
of  as  especially  the  depository  of  the  great  promise."2 

The  most  striking  and  significant  title  in  connection 
with  the  New  Testament  is  Servant  of  Jehovah  applied  to 
Israel  and  to  the  line  of  David,  "  thought  of,  not  merely 
in  themselves,  but  as  the  promise  people  and  the  promise 
dynasty."  This  expressive  and  significant  word  conditions 
the  great  passage  in  Isaiah  lii  and  liii, — the  suffering 
Servant  of  the  Lord. 

The  expression,  "the  Son,"3  is  used  of  Israel  or  the 
existing  representative  of  the  house  of  David,  thought  of 
as  a  son  to  Jehovah. 

1  Gen.  xii,  1-3  ;  Ex.  vi,  vii,  et  al.  ;  2  Sam.  vii,  pass. 

*  Dr.  Beecher. 

s  1  Chron.  xxii,  10;  Psa.  ii,  7-12,  lxxxix,  26;  Hos.  xi,  I  ;  Isa.  ix,  6. 


44  GOSPEL   NARRATIVES 

This  great  personality  is  called  the  Chosen  or  Elect  One,1 
representing  the  choice  of  God  as  the  bearer  of  blessing 
to  the  world. 

He  is  also  called  Hasidh, 2  the  "permanent  depository 
of  Gods's  loving  kindness." 

He  is  also  called  "  branch  " 3  and  "flower,"  4  terms  which 
express  His  connection  with  the  race  and  His  usefulness 
and  beauty. 

Now  in  this  hurried  and  inadequate  outline  of  Old  Testa- 
ment prophetism,  two  great  ruling  ideas  of  vast  import 
and  far-reaching  significance  appear. 

i.  A  world  Kingdom  of  God  based  upon  righteousness 
issuing  in  universal  peace.  The  song  of  the  angels  in 
Luke  might  be  taken  as  a  summary  of  the  unfolding  pro- 
phetic conception. 

2.  The  realization  of  that  kingdom  through  consecrated 
personality — a  holy  people  and  a  holy  king. 

The  unique  distinction  of  the  New  Testament  men  and 
their  claim  to  permanent  honor  in  the  moral  annals  of  man 
was  their  identification  of  the  teaching  of  Christ  with  the 
teaching  of  the  prophets  and  the  personality  of  Christ  with 
the  fulfillment  of  the  prophetic  promise. 

That  they  chose  just  the  perpetual  spiritual  elements 
of  the  promises  as  constituting  the  essence  of  the  prophetic 
idea,  and  were  bold  enough  to  identify  the  humble  Jesus 
of  Nazareth  with  the  august  figure  who  should  reveal  God 
to  men  and  usher  in  the  kingdom  of  righteousness,  argues 
for  them  a  grasp  of  the  meaning  of  the  Old  Testament  and 
the  significance  of  the  person  of  Christ  for  men,  which 
goes  far  to  account  for  their  influence  over  the  world  since. 

1  Psa.  Ixxxix,  3;  Isa.  xlii,  I  ;  xliii,  20;  xlv,  4. 

s  Micah  vii,  2  ;  Psa.  xii,  I  ;  xxxii,  6  ;  xviii,  25  ;  iv,  3,  4 ;  lxxxvi,  2. 

s  II.  Sam.  xxiii,  8  ;  Isa.  iv,  2-6  ;  Jer.  xxiii,  5-8  ;  xxxiii,  14-18;  Zech.  iii,  8. 

4  Isa.  xi,  1-10. 


OLD    TESTAMENT  PROPHECIES  45 

Account  for  it  as  you  may,  the  apostolic  identification  of 
Jesus  with  the  promised  Messiah  is  one  of  the  most 
remarkable  incidents  in  the  history  of  the  human  mind. 

This  identification,  however,  reveals  the  perpetual  value 
of  the  Messianic  ideal l  as  well  as  the  historic  importance 
of  Jesus.2  The  promise  is  of  God,  so  also  the  fulfillment; 
both  together  constitute  a  true  philosophy  of  history  in 
relationship  both  to  the  past  and  to  the  future. 

That  this  is  the  correct  interpretation  of  the  Messianic 
hope,  the  attitude  of  Jesus  toward  it  is  adequate  and  con- 
vincing evidence.  That  the  teachings  of  the  prophets  had 
a  profound  and  even  controlling  influence  upon  Him,  there 
can  be  no  question.  That  He  looked  upon  the  promise  of 
the  prophets  as  God's  promise  and  upon  His  life  as 
the  fulfillment  of  it,  cannot  be  successfully  denied.  He 
accepted  the  Messianic  idea  for  Himself,  not  merely  as  a 
garment  to  be  worn  until  He  was  established  on  His  way 
and  then  to  be  flung  aside  as  outworn  and  useless,  but  as 
the  permanent  and  adequate  form  of  His  historic  self- 
revelation.  He  conformed  His  life  to  the  teaching  of  the 
prophets,  not  often  in  the  sense  of  performing  acts  inci- 
dentally fulfilling  ancient  oracles,  but  by  accepting  that 
inward  spirit  of  concentration  to  the  will  of  God  and  the 
need  of  man,  which  was  the  soul  of  the  prophetic  ideal. 

The  difference  between  Jesus  and  the  Jews  with  whom 
He  came  into  conflict  was  that  He  despised  the  Messianic 
idea  which  they  adored,  but  that  to  Him  that  idea  meant 
purity  and  devotion,  labor  and  sacrifice  and  suffering, 
willingly  endured  and  patiently  borne;  while  to  most  of 
them  it  meant  political  power,  earthly  exaltation,  and  a 
spectacular  career  of  conquest  and  glory.  The  difference 
was  irreconcilable,  but  the  Jews  and  not  Jesus  were  false 

1  See  Bruce,  Miraculous  Element  in  the  Gospels,  pp.  252-254. 

2  Cf.  Clarke,  The  Use  of  the  Scriptures  in  Theology,  p.  129. 


46  GOSPEL   NARRATIVES 

to  the  real  Messianic  idea.  As  He  looked  out  upon  His 
career  as  the  Messiah,  He  saw  clearly  the  crown  of  thorns, 
the  cross  and  the  tomb,  and  though  He  was  able  to  stay 
His  soul  with  the  thought  of  the  joy  that  was  set  before 
Him,  His  acceptance  of  it  was  none  the  less  an  act  of 
supreme  consecration  to  an  ordeal,  dreadful  to  contemplate, 
of  sacrifice  and  loss. 

This  minimizing  of  the  importance  of  the  Messianic 
framework  of  the  Gospel  is  connected  also  with  a  dangerous 
underestimate  of  the  value  of  history.  The  full  flower  of 
the  tendency  may  be  seen  in  utterances  like  the  following, 
from  James  Martineau. 

In  speaking  of  the  disappearance  from  radical  theology 
of  certain  conceptions  formerly  held,  he  instances 1  "  the 
entire  Messianic  theology, "  and  goes  on  to  say :  "  As  objec- 
tive reality,  as  a  faithful  representation  of  our  invisible 
and  ideal  universe,  it  is  gone  from  us,  gone  therefore  from 
our  interior  religion,  and  become  an  outside  mythology. 

"  From  the  person  of  Jesus,  for  instance,  everything 
official  attached  to  Him  by  evangelists  or  divines,  has 
fallen  away;  when  they  put  such  false  robes  on  Him,  they 
were  but  leading  Him  to  death.  The  pomp  of  royal  line- 
age and  fulfilled  prediction,  the  prerogative  of  King,  of 
Priest,  of  Judge,  the  advent  with  retinue  of  angels  on  the 
clouds  of  heaven  are  to  us  mere  deforming  investitures, 
misplaced,  like  court  dresses  on  the  spirits  of  the  just,  and 
He  is  simply  the  Divine  Flower  of  Humanity  blossoming 
after  ages  of  spiritual  growth — the  realized  possibility  of 
life  in  God. 

"  All  that  has  been  added  to  that  real  historic  scene, 

the  angels  that  hang  around  His  birth  and  the  fiend  that 

tempts  His  youth ;  the  dignities  that  await  His  future ;  the 

throne,  the  trumpet,  the  assize,  the  bar  of  judgment;  with 

1  Loss  and  Gain  in  Recent  Theology,  pp.  14  ff. 


OLD    TESTAMENT  PROPHECIES  47 

all  the  splendors  and  terrors  that  ensue,  Hades  and  the 
Crystal  Sea,  Paradise  and  the  Infernal  Gulf,  nay,  the  very 
boundary  walls  of  the  Kosmic  panorama  that  contain 
these  things  have  for  us  utterly  melted  away  and  left  us 
amid  the  infinite  space  and  the  silent  stars."  1 

Stripping  the  alluring  rhetoric  from  this  utterance  and 
making  a  careful  analysis  of  the  things  that  with  one 
stroke  currcnte  calamo  he  removes  from  the  boards,  it  will 
be  seen  to  involve  the  rejection  of  practically  the  entire 
historic  form  of  Christ's  self-revelation  and  the  interpre- 
tation of  it  by  the  disciples.  Martineau's  lifelong  rejection 
of  the  Messianic  theology  must  be  regarded  as  the  vagary 
of  a  great  mind  whose  understanding  of  Christ  was  philo- 
sophic rather  than  historical.2  The  ornate  sentences 
quoted  above  involve  an  evident  fallacy,  for  those  who 
have  given  us  the  portrait  of  the  "  Divine  Flower "  of 
humanity  are  the  same  ones  who  have  robed  Him  in  the 
"  deforming  investitures,"  and  it  is  very  difficult  to  under- 
stand how  men  could  at  one  and  the  same  time  have  eyes  to 
see  and  skill  to  portray  the  "  Divine  Flower  "  yet  be  unen- 
lightened enough  to  put  false  robes  upon  Him,  to  dim  His 
beauty  with  meretricious  decorations,  to  enswathe  Him  in 
deforming  investitures,  especially  as  these  very  terms 
which  are  intended  most  clearly  to  manifest  and  maintain 
His  Divineness  are,  according  to  this  teaching,  "the 
deforming  investitures." 

1  Strauss  has  given  expression  to  the  same  general  tendency.  He  has 
said:  "  What  matters  it  to  us  what  passed  in  Palestine  eighteen  hundred 
years  ago  ?  How  does  it  concern  us  that  Jesus  was  born  in  such  or  such  a 
village,  that  He  had  such  or  such  ancestors,  that  He  suffered  on  such  or 
such  a  day  of  the  Holy  Week."    {Leben  Jesu  In.) 

This  transcendence  of  history  is  fatal  in  the  long  run  to  reality  in  faith 
or  life.  What  Christ  is  ideally  is  dependent  upon  what  He  was  actually. 
The  only  interpretation  of  Christ  which  accounts  for  His  historic  influence 
is  that  given  in  the  Gospel.  *  Cf.  Bruce,  Apologetics,  pp.  53  ff. 


48  GOSPEL  NARRATIVES 

And  the  ages  of  spiritual  growth,  out  of  which  the 
Divine  Flower  blossomed,  are  literally  interpreted — the 
training  of  the  chosen  people  by  the  prophets  into  the 
meaning  and  power  of  the  Messianic  hope. 

And  the  Jesus  thus  stripped  of  all  the  symbolism  of 
authority  and  power  and  cut  off  from  history  is  a  dream, 
not  a  reality.  The  attempts  to  find  a  Gospel  behind  the 
Gospel  have  conspicuously  failed.  Criticism  has  increas- 
ingly shown  that  the  primary  Gospel,  the  alleged  group 
of  facts  behind  the  evangelic  record,  which  we  now 
possess,  is  the  same  Gospel  in  all  essential  particulars. 

That  simple  unmiraculous  Galilaean  vision  of  the 
gentle  teacher,  without  self-assertion  and  without  wonders, 
never  existed,  nor  if  it  had  existed  would  it  have  been  of 
any  value  to  us.  The  form  of  the  record  is  a  part  of  its 
essence.  The  reality  of  the  Christ  is  bound  with  the 
reality  of  His  life  as  portrayed  in  the  Gospel.  The  tran- 
scendental idealism  that  attempts  to  construe  Jesus  apart 
from  His  real  life  on  the  earth  as  found  in  the  historical 
records  is  bound  to  blunder.1 

The  utterance  quoted  above  could  not  have  emanated 
from  a  man  with  any  strong  grasp  of  the  meaning  and 
sacredness  of  histoiy.  This  explains  the  anomaly  of 
Martineau's  devoutness  toward  Christ  and  his  radical 
and  ruthless  criticism  of  the  documents  in  which  Christ's 
life  is  enshrined.  Christ  to  him  was  an  inward  vision 
interpreted  in  the  light  of  philosophy  rather  than  of 
history.  The  Christ  whom  he  pictures  is  such  a  one  as 
our  age  has  often  dreamed  of,  but  such  as  no  age  ever 
actually  saw,  morally  magnetic,  spiritually  ideal,  but 
working  no  miracle  and  lacking  in  all  the  symbolism  of 
power  and  dignity. 

1  For  a  good  statement  of  the  essentially  miraculous  Gospel,  see  Fairbairn, 
Phil.  Christ.  Rel.  pp.  323  seq.     Cf  Bruce,  ibid.,  p.  IOI. 


OLD    TESTAMENT  PROPHECIES  49 

But  in  order  to  be  real,  Christ  must  be  historically 
placed.  In  order  to  be  known  He  must  live,  be  recorded 
and  portrayed.  He  must  be  born  at  a  certain  time  and 
at  a  certain  place,  under  certain  definite  circumstances, 
into  family  and  natural  and  historic  relationships;  He 
must  establish  Himself  in  society ;  relate  Himself  to  the 
religious  life  of  man ;  fulfill  expectations  and  make  Him- 
self believed  and  gain  followers.  And  having  thus 
established  Himself,  He  must  be  made  known  to  the 
world  in  records  which  shall  constitute  testimony  to  His 
person,  and  thus  manifested,  the  historic  facts  of  His  life 
are  of  interest  and  of  permanent  value  in  the  interpretation 
of  His  character  and  meaning  for  the  world.  To  cut 
loose  from  history  is  to  fly  off  into  the  spaces.  It  is  a 
separation  from  reality.  This  constitutes  the  value  of  the 
Messianic  conception.  It  is  a  historic  fact  that  Jesus 
Himself  and  His  followers  believed  that  He  was  the 
Messiah.  This  granted,  as  it  certainly  must  be,  the  rest 
follows,  for  no  historic  fact  can  be  shuffled  off  like  an  old 
coat,  once  good  but  now  outworn.  That  a  thing  so  hap- 
pened is  evidence  enough  that  it  is  a  part  of  God's  plan, 
that  it  is  sacred  and  of  permanent  value.  I  do  not  believe 
that  Jesus  would  accept  honor  paid  to  Himself  at  the 
cost  of  discredit  placed  upon  the  noble  and  worthy  idea 
that  had  such  mighty  influence  in  molding  His  own 
consciousness  and  life,  and  brought  into  His  new  move- 
ment for  humanity  the  momentum  of  that  conception  of 
God  and  man  and  their  union  in  a  kingdom  of  grace  and 
love,  which  had  required  ages  for  its  ripening,  and  to  the 
fulfillment  of  which  He  gave  His  life  a  willing  offering. 
He  who  abandons  the  Messianic  theology  1  has  cut  him- 

1  Mathews  in  Messianic  Hope  in  the  New  Testament  has  opened  anew  the 
question  of  the  permanent  value  of  the   Messianic  conception,  but  after 
carefully  reading  the  book  I  see  nothing  to  modify  in  the  above  statement. 
4 


5<D  GOSPEL   NARRATIVES 

self  off  from  historic  reality  and  is  indeed  left  amid  the 
"  infinite  space  and  the  silent  stars  "  and  alone,  for  the 
Jesus  of  history  and  of  Christian  experience  is  not  there. 

It  now  remains  to  gather  up  the  reasonings  of  this 
chapter  and  to  indicate  certain  conclusions  toward  which 
we  have  been  tending. 

The  prophecies  did  not  create  the  incidents  with  which 
they  are  connected.  We  have  found  abundant  reason  in 
each  case  to  justify  a  peremptory  dismissal  of  the  hypoth- 
esis that  the  incidents  arose  by  legendary  creation  due  to 
the  influence  of  the  Old  Testament  texts  upon  the  imagin- 
ation of  the  disciples. 

In  addition  to  all  the  reasons  which  have  been  already 
adduced  to  establish  this  conclusion,  there  is  another, 
which  would  seem  to  be  sufficient  in  itself.  There  was 
no  unanimity  in  the  Messianic  expectation  of  the  Jews 
contemporary  with  Christ.1  Some  looked  for  a  man; 
some  for  a  Divine  being ;  some  for  a  succession  of  men  ; 
some  for  a  kingdom  without  any  single  personality  at  the 
head  of  it.  There  was  no  such  consensus  upon  any  one 
Messianic  text,  nor  any  connected  series  of  texts  as  would 
lead  to  the  creation  of  incidents  to  fulfill  them.  The  hope 
was  particularly  vivid ;  the  details  of  the  way  in  which  the 
hope  was  to  be  fulfilled  was  blurred,  vague,  and  contra- 
dictory. 

As  was  to  be  expected,  therefore,  the  texts  seem  rather 
to  be  illustrations  and  side  lights  used  to  outline  and 
illuminate  a  profound  and  philosophic  conception  of  the 

1  See  statements  and  references  in  Mathew's  Messianic  Hope  in  the  New 
Testament,  pp.  3,  44,  45,  54,  and  index  under  "  Messianism  ;  "  see  also 
Stanton  in  //.  D.  B.  article,  "  Messiah,"  vol.  ii,  p.  354;  and  Schiirer, 
Jewish  People  in  Time  of  Christ,  index  under  "Messianic  Hope,"  vol.  ii, 
ch.  ii,  pp.  126-187  5  Edersheim,  L.  J.  71/.  bk.  ii,  ch.  v;  Beecber,  Prophets 
and  Promise,  pp.  366-375. 


OLD    TESTAMENT  PROPHECIES  5  I 

unity  of  the  life  of  Jesus  with  past  history,  and  especially 
the  promise  of  God  through  the  prophets. 

This  conception  of  the  evangelists  lends  no  little  credi- 
bility to  all  statements  of  fact  which  they  may  choose  to 
make. 

It  is  unlikely  that  men,  who  had  such  a  firm  grasp  upon 
the  philosophy  of  history  as  is  indicated  by  the  fact  that 
they  alone  of  their  contemporaries  understood  the  mean- 
ing of  prophecy  and  of  the  person  and  work  of  Jesus,  and 
exhibited  the  unity  of  these  two  with  such  clearness  and 
power  as  to  convince  the  vast  majority  of  competent 
minds  not  only  that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah,  but  that  the 
Messiah  was  the  Revealer  of  God  and  the  Saviour  of 
men,  would  have  a  weak  sense  of  the  sacredness  of  fact, 
or  show  themselves  lacking  in  the  genuine  historic  spirit.1 

In  other  words,  I  find  it  impossible  to  believe  that  the 
followers  of  One  who  taught  with  unexampled  emphasis 
the  sacred  obligation  of  truth,  who  portrayed  with  such 
simple  truth  and  moral  majesty  the  ideal  life — "the  flower 
of  humanity  " — would  weave  into  the  fabric  of  the  story, 
which  to  them,  was  of  all  things  in  life  the  most  important, 
floating  legends  and  old  wives'  fables,  for  which  there  was 
and  could  be  no  reasonable  ground  of  assurance. 

The  connection  between  prophecy  and  fulfillment  in 
the  life  of  Jesus,  as  seen  on  the  large  scale  in  His  realization 
of  the  Messianic  ideal,  and  deliniated  with  such  power, 
especially  by  the  writer  of  Matthew's  Gospel,  is  one  of 
our  reasons  for  attributing  to  him  the  genuine  historic 
spirit. 

Based  upon  this  fact,  my  conviction  that  Matthew  was 
a  genuine  historian  is  so  strong  that  even  if  I  should  find 
reason  to  doubt  the  correctness  of  his  exegesis  according 

1  Cf.  Beecher,  Prophets  and  the  Promise,  p.  380  (extract  quoted  from 
article  in  Am.  Journal  of  TheoL). 


52  GOSPEL  NARRATIVES 

to  modern  methods,  I  should  still  be  driven  to  hold  that 
he  had  some  good  reason  for  his  interpretations. 

It  seems  to  me  that  there  must  have  been  some 
harmony  between  the  life  of  Jesus  and  current  Messianic 
expectations,  irrespective  of  exegesis.  Attention  has 
often  enough  been  called  to  the  divergence  between  the 
career  of  Jesus  and  the  Messianic  expectations  of  the 
day — was  there  not  likely  to  be  some  harmony  as  well  as 
great  divergence  ? 

It  is  not  a  question  whether  the  exegesis  of  Mat- 
thew is  justifiable  according  to  the  methods  of  the 
modern  class-room,  but  whether  some  of  the  current 
expectations  of  the  Jews  were  not  literally  met  and  fulfilled 
in  Jesus. 

I  refer  especially  to  such  beliefs  as  that  Christ  should 
be  born  of  the  family  of  David  and  at  the  town  of  Bethle- 
hem. 

To  me  it  seems  a  clear  case  of  simple  necessity  that  so 
far  as  they  did  not  derogate  from  His  true  dignity  as 
Messiah  and  did  not  tend  to  deflect  Him  from  the  true 
path  of  His  mission,  He  should  meet  and  answer  some 
specific  hopes  and  convictions  of  His  contemporaries.  It 
would  seem  to  be  essential  that  there  should  be  before,  at, 
and  after,  His  birth  providential  indications  of  His  impor- 
tance, that  His  life  might  be  guarded  with  especial  care 
and  His  personality  watched  with  expectant  interest. 
Otherwise,  why  should  there  have  been  any  prophecy  at 
all  ?  It  would  seem  necessary  that  there  should  be  some 
meeting  ground  between  Him  and  His  own  age,  and  where 
could  this  meeting  ground  be  except  in  their  ideas  of  how 
the  Messiah  should  come  and  what  He  should  be  ?  He  had 
to  disappoint  them  in  many  things,  would  it  be  likely  that 
He  would  be  forced  to  disappoint  them  in  all  things  ?  If 
they  expected  Him  to  be  born  of  the  family  and  in  the  City 


OLD    TESTAMENT  PROPHECIES  53 

of  David,  in  line,  that  is,  with  their  fondest  memories  and  of 
their  most  sacred  hopes,  why  should  He  not  be  thus 
born  ? x 

The  only  answer  to  be  made  to  this  would  be  a  con- 
tention that  Jesus  could  not  be  born  at  Bethlehem  and  of 
David's  line  and  still  be  the  Messiah  and  Saviour,  which  is, 
of  course,  an  absurdity.  We  have  found,  therefore,  I  feel, 
a  rational  interpretation  of  Matthew's  use  of  prophecy, 
which  does  not  require  any  wresting  of  the  texts  and  is  in 
harmony  with  his  otherwise  strongly  established  reputa- 
tion for  historic  carefulness. 

There  is  evidence  in  the  life  of  Jesus  that  where  there 
was  no  moral  principle  involved,  He  sometimes  deliber- 
ately conformed  to  popularly  understood  Messianic 
requirements  in  order  to  aid  recognition  and  acceptance 
of  Him.  The  possibility  of  harmony  between  popular 
expectation  and  the  deeper  meaning  of  prophecy  is 
strikingly  seen  in  the  incident  which  occurred  on  Palm 
Sunday.  In  the  triumphant  entry  into  Jerusalem,  Jesus 
deliberately  performed  a  Messianic  act  in  accordance 
with  popular  ideas.  It  was  a  claim  of  Messiahship  put 
into  pictorial  form.  He  entered  Jerusalem  as  her  King, 
at  the  same  time  that,  in  accordance  with  Rabbinical 
tradition,  He  proclaimed  Israel's  apostasy. 

But  it  has  a  deeper  meaning  than  this. 2  Superficially 
considered,  it  was  simply  a  concession  to  their  methods 
of  interpretation.  But  the  passage  had  become  symbolic: 
The  ass  was  the  universal  type  of  peace,  and  in  riding  upon 
the  animal's  back  He  adopted  the  symbolism  to  Himself 
as  the  Prince  of  Peace.  It  was  a  parable  in  act  instead  of 
in  word,  which  at  once  met  a  present  purpose  of  the  time, 


1  Cf.  Beecher,  Prophets  and  Promise,  p.  370. 
*Cf.  Edersheim,  L.J.  M.,  vol.  ii,  p.  370. 


54  GOSPEL  NARRATIVES 

and  touched  upon  the  very  deepest  meanings  of  the  pro- 
phetic idea.  * 

It  must  also  be  said  that  precisely  in  the  most  vital 
points  Matthew's  exegesis  will  bear  any  legitimate  test 
which  may  be  applied  to  it.  The  Davidic  origin  of  the 
Messiah  is  based,  not  upon  uncertain  interpretations  of 
isolated  texts,  but  upon  the  entire  body  of  prophecy  after 
David's  time,  having  not  only  a  literal  but  also  a  spiritual 
meaning  and  a  legitimate  and  inescapable  predictive  force. 

The  birth  at  Bethlehem  was  incidental  rather  than  vital, 
but  is  evidently  a  legitimate  detail  under  the  Promise. 

The  birth  from  a  virgin  was  connected  with  a  legiti- 
mately Messianic  passage  and  is  also  the  culmination  of  a 
long  series  of  repetitions  of  the  promise  connected  with 
the  birth  of  especially  important  historic  persons. 

The  fulfillment  of  a  comprehensive  historic  promise  as 
a  whole  lends  all  needful  credibility  to  the  details  which 
accompanied  that  fulfillment.  The  Infancy  narratives  sup- 
ply the  links  of  connection  between  the  promise  and  its 
fulfillment. 

In  them  we  see  the  ancient  hope  illumined  by  the  bright 
light  of  its  fulfillment.  In  them,  therefore,  we  are  on  firm 
ground  both  of  exegesis  and  history. 2 

1  It  may  be  worth  while  to  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  while  Jesus 
deliberately  adopted  this  popular  expectation  as  an  object  lesson  or  parable 
in  act  emphasizing  at  once  His  Messiahship  and  the  nation's  sin,  there  is 
no  evidence  that  the  point  of  the  incident  reached  their  understanding  at 
all.  The  pilgrims  cried,  Hosanna  !  The  nation  stood  aloof  in  sullen  per- 
plexity and  cold  dislike  or  in  ill-repressed  fury.  It  shows  that  there  was  no 
such  widespread  eagerness  and  aptitude  in  the  application  of  Messianic 
texts  to  Jesus  as  has  sometimes  been  claimed. 

2  The  most  original  and  valuable  recent  discussion  of  Messianic  prophecy 
is  Willis  Judson  Beecher's  Prophets  and  the  Promise  (T.  Y.  Crowell  &  Co., 
I905)- 


CHAPTER  III 

THE     THEORY      OF     LATE     JEWISH-CHRISTIAN      INTERPOLA- 
TION—  KEIM 

In  order  to  justify  the  rejection  of  the  Gospel  story  of 
the  birth  of  Jesus,  it  seems  necessary  to  cut  it  off  from  the 
main  body  of  the  evangelic  tradition.  By  denying  apos- 
tolic origin  and  consequently  apostolic  authority  to  those 
statements  concerning  the  mode  of  His  entrance  into  the 
world,  found  in  our  Gospels,  much  is  done  to  discredit 
them  as  the  legitimate  basis  of  faith. 

The  task,  however,  is  not  an  easy  one,  for,  at  the  very 
outset,  the  weight  of  textual  authority  is  in  favor  of  the 
section. 

The  story  of  the  Infancy  is  a  part  of  the  record.  It  has 
been  a  part  of  the  record  from  the  beginning  so  far  as  we 
have  any  evidence.  The  first  two  chapters  of  Matthew 
belong  to  present  Greek  Gospel ;  they  are  found  in  every 
unmutilated  Greek  manuscript ;  they  are  testified  to  by  the 
earliest  church  fathers ;  and  according  to  Epiphanius, 
belonged  to  the  Hebrew  copy  of  the  Gospel  in  the  posses- 
sion of  the  Nazarene  sect.1 

The  Infancy  section  throughout  has  an  equally  good 
textual  foundation.  Against  this,  Keim  alleges,  first,  a 
solution  in  continuity  between  the  genealogy  at  the  begin- 
ning of  the  first  chapter  and  the  Infancy  narrative,  and 
again  between  the  latter  and  the  account  of  the  baptism  in 
the  third  chapter. 

1See  full  discussion  in  Stanton,  Gospels  as  Historical  Documents,  pp.257,  sea. 

55 


$6  GOSPEL  NARRATIVES 

Second,  inconsistency  in  certain  statements  in  the  Infancy- 
section  with  statements  in  the  section  following.1 

Third,  the  omission  of  the  section  by  the  Gospel  of  the 
Ebionites. 

Of  these  arguments,  we  may  settle  the  third  one  first 
and  very  summarily.  The  omission  of  the  Infancy  section 
from  the  Ebionite  Gospel  was  not  only  natural,  but  inevi- 
table. The  statements  therein  contained  of  Jesus'  birth 
impinged  with  destructive  effect  upon  all  Ebionite  interpre- 
tations of  Jesus'  life,  and  could  not  be  allowed  to  stand  by 
the  adherents  of  that  view.  That  the  Ebionites  did  cut 
out  the  section  adds  as  much  as  any  one  thing  could  to 
our  assurance  that  the  story  of  the  birth  belonged  to  the 
orthodox  tradition.2 

The  argument,  from  alleged  inconsistencies  in  statement 
between  the  section  and  that  which  follows,  is  also  far  from 
conclusive.  In  the  first  chapter,  eighteenth  and  twentieth 
verses,  it  is  stated  that  Jesus  was  conceived  by  the  Holy 
Ghost.  In  the  third  chapter,  sixteenth  verse,  it  is  stated 
that  the  heavens  were  opened,  and  that  the  Spirit  of  God 
descended  upon  Him  in  form  as  a  dove.  (See  note  A  at 
end  of  Chapter.) 

These  statements  are  inconsistent  only  in  the  mind  of 
one  who  interprets  the  latter  statement  as  meaning  that 
then,  for  the  first  time,  the  Spirit  was  granted  to  Jesus. 
But  there  is  no  reason  why  they  should  be  thus  inter- 
preted. That  the  Spirit  of  God  was  especially  manifested 
to  Jesus  at  the  crisis  of  His  baptism  one  need  not  question  ; 
that  He  was  bestowed  then,  for  the  first  time,  is  to  be  very 
seriously  doubted.  That  the  Spirit  of  God  had  nothing 
to  do  with  Jesus  until  He  was  a  mature  man,  ready  for 

1  Keim,  vol.  i,  p.  83. 

2  For  evidence  that  the  Infancy  narrative  was  in  the  Gospel  according  to 
the  Hebrews  see  Stanton :  Gospels  as  Historical  Documents,  p.  297. 


LATE  JEWISH-CHRISTIAN  INTERPOLATION         $7 

His  life  work,  is  untenable.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  pas- 
sage in  the  Infancy  section  and  the  one  concerning  the 
baptism  are  parts  of  one  consistent  representation  that  the 
Spirit  of  God  was  present  throughout  the  entire  career  of 
Jesus. 

We,  then,  are  left  to  face  the  question  as  to  the  alleged 
solution  of  continuity  between  the  Infancy  section  and  the 
adjacent  parts  of  the  narrative. 

Keim's  statement  of  the  case  is  as  follows  : — 

"  There  is  for  example  no  sort  of  connection  between 
the  history  of  the  childhood  of  Jesus  and  that  of  His 
baptism  ;  the  latter  is  tacked  on  to  the  former  in  a  strik- 
ingly loose  and  inexact  manner,  as  if  the  childhood  of 
Jesus  and  John's  baptizing  were  contemporary;  and  to 
the  baptism  of  Jesus  is  ascribed  the  inspiration  from  God, 
which  the  narrative  of  the  childhood  expressly  refers  to 
His  birth.1 

"  This  shows  that  the  Gospel  began  with  the  genealogy 
of  Jesus  (chap,  i),  and  John's  baptizing  (chap,  iii),  and  that 
the  interpolator  fitted  in,  as  well  as  he  could,  the  narrative 
of  the  childhood."  2 

Now,  is  there  any  such  break  in  continuity  as  this 
statement  alleges  ? 

The  blunder  of  making  the  baptizing  of  John  and  the 
infancy  of  Jesus  contemporaneous  is  so  colossal  as  to 
suggest  a  doubt  that  even  an  interpolator  could  have 
perpetrated  it. 

Is  it  not  pertinent  to  suggest  that  the  significance  of  the 
last  verse  of  the  second  chapter,  to  which  the  words  "  in 
those  days  "  refer  has  been  overlooked  ?  Whoever  wrote 
that  passage  must  have  known  that  there  was  an  interval 
between  the  arrival  of  the  family  at  Nazareth,  when  Jesus 
was   a  baby,  and  the  appearance   of  Jesus   among   the 

1  Keim,  vol.  i,  p.  82.  2  Page  83. 


58  GOSPEL   NARRATIVES 

disciples  of  John  at  Jordan,  when  He  was  a  man  grown. 
He  does  not  wish  to  tell  the  story  of  those  years  in 
detail.  He,  therefore  (in  the  manner  of  Matthew),  sum- 
marizes the  entire  period  of  residence  in  Nazareth  as  a 
fulfillment  of  prophecy.  His  mind  is  evidently  dwelling 
upon  the  period  as  completed  in  His  public  manifestation, 
when  He  became  talked  about  and  known  as  the 
Nazarene.  In  the  fourth  chapter  a  statement  is  made 
which  is  meaningless,  except  with  reference  to  the  last 
verse  of  the  second  chapter.1 

If  the  Infancy  section  is  an  interpolation,  it  is  most 
skillfully  done ;  in  other  words,  there  is  nothing  in  the 
passage  to  compel  us  to  the  belief  that  it  has  been  thrust 
in  where  it  does  not  belong.  Let  us  look  a  little  more 
closely  at  this  alleged  interpolator, — who  was  he  and 
when  did  he  work  ?2 

Keim  thus  states  his  theory :  "  The  impression  is  over- 
whelming that  a  grand  unity  underlies  this  Gospel,  and 
that  a  moderate  share  of  small,  but  essentially  related 
additions,  belongs  to  the  Jewish-Christian  interpolator, 
who  lived  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  more  or  less 
contemporary  with  Luke  or  Mark,  and  who  wrote  in  the 
spirit  of  a  freer  Christianity." 3 

The  work  of  the  interpolator  is  marked  in  general  by 
quotations  from  the  Hebrew  Old  Testament  "  introduced 
by  impressive  stereotyped  phrases,  closely  resembling 
each  other,  but  not  occurring  either  in  the  case  of  the 
sayings  of  Jesus,  or  the  reflection  of  the  first  writer."4 

As  related  to  the  section  especially  under  review,  the 
statement  of  Keim  is  this  : — 

"  With  the  exception  of  the  single  passage  as  to  the  birth 
by  a  virgin,  where,  as  often  in  other  parts  of  the  book, 
the  Greek  version  was  quite  indispensable,  the  use  of  the 

1  Ch.  iv,  13.  *  Page  85.  3  Page  84.  4  Page  82. 


LATE  JEWISH-CHRISTIAN  INTERPOLATION        59 

Hebrew  Old  Testament  prevails  throughout  the  whole  of 
the  preliminary  history,  as  can  be  demonstrated  in  four 
particulars  ;  and  these  very  particulars,  the  birth  by  the 
virgin,  intimations  of  which  are  introduced  also  into  the 
genealogy,  the  birth  at  Bethlehem,  the  flight  into  Egypt, 
with  the  return  thence,  and  the  slaughter  of  the  children 
at  Bethlehem,  all  so  much  more  evidently  the  property 
of  this  collector  of  prophecies,  as  they  find  little  or  no 
confirmation  elsewhere  in  the  Gospel  history." 

The  quotations  thus  far  made  apply  chiefly  to  the  first 
Gospel.  Keim  seems  to  have  no  definite  theory  as  to  the 
connection  of  the  Infancy  stories  with  the  Gospel  of  Luke, 
but  in  another  place  he  very  definitely  pronounces  upon 
the  date  of  the  entire  Infancy  section  in  both  Gospels.1 

"  The  age  of  these  tales  cannot  be  put  far  back  in  the 
first  Gospel ;  they  can  hardly  be  counted  as  part  of  the 
groundwork  of  the  book,  which  more  likely,  with  Mark, 
began  with  the  baptism  of  John,  and  on  that  account 
alone  fall  below  a.  d.  70.  In  the  third  Gospel,  whose  rise 
lies  far  enough  on  this  side  of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem 
(a.  d.  80-90),  the  Jewish-Christian  portions,  even  of  the 
introductory  narrative,  in  spirit,  matter,  and  form  show 
the  coloring  of  a  later  time  than  that  of  Matthew  himself. 

"  We  may  safely  call  these  accounts  post-apostolic,  and 
above  all  post-Pauline ;  the  latter,  if  only  for  this  reason, 
that  Paul  and  the  rest  of  the  New  Testament  have  as  yet 
no  inkling  of  a  miraculous  birth  of  Jesus  ;  which  indeed 
finds  no  strong  support  until  after  the  middle  of  the 
second  century,  in  the  pages  of  Justin,  in  the  epistle  of 
Ignatius,  and  in  the  Gospel  of  James." 2 

According,  then,  to  the  additions  in  Matthew,  and 
according  to  Luke,  Mary  is  betrothed  to  Joseph,  and  is 
blessed  with  offspring  before  any  contact  with  him. 

1  Vol.  ii,  p.  45.  a  Page  46. 


60  GOSPEL   NARRATIVES 

Matthew,  with  chaste  reserve,  says,  "  She  was  found 
with  child  of  the  Holy  Ghost." 

Luke,  following  his  source  of  information,  draws  a 
more  sensuous  picture  of  the  heavenly  mystery:  "the 
Holy  Ghost  descended  upon  her  in  the  form  of  a  cloud, 
in  which  the  hidden  God  comes  near  to  mortal  men,  the 
fruit  of  this  divine  proximity  is  the  child  she  bears  beneath 
her  bosom." 

The  way  in  which  the  story  grew  up  is  also  clearly 
described. 

"  The  longing  was  early  excited, — a  longing  which 
found  the  fullest  satisfaction  in  the  Apochryphal  Gospels, 
— for  exacter  information  as  to  the  birth  and  childhood 
of  Jesus,  and  thereby  at  the  same  time  to  obtain  an 
explanation  of  His  miraculous  life.  Hence  arose  out  of 
the  Old  Testament  the  belief  that  He  was  born  of  a  pure 
virgin,  the  belief  in  the  adoration  of  the  Magi,  the  flight 
into  Egypt,  and  the  recall  thence, — stories  which  pointed 
out  the  way  of  Christianity  to  the  Gentiles." 

We  now  have  before  us,  in  his  own  words  and  at  con- 
siderable length,  Keim's  account  of  the  origin  of  the 
Infancy  narrative.     What  is  to  be  said  concerning  it  ? 

My  first  remark  upon  this  explanatory  theory  is  that, 
just  as  it  stands,  without  calling  into  question  one  item  in 
the  manifold  tissue  of  assertions  by  which  it  is  maintained, 
it  is  open  to  serious,  and,  as  it  seems  to  me,  fatal  objection. 

The  theory  places  the  accounts  too  early.  Granting 
that  the  additions  to  Matthew,  of  which  the  Infancy  nar- 
rative forms  a  part,  and  the  account  in  Luke,  were  com- 
posed some  time  in  the  second  decade  before  the  close 
of  the  century,  that  date  is  still  too  early  for  the  success- 
ful maintenance  of  the  mythical  hypothesis. x 

1  Strauss  admits  that  the  mythical  hypothesis  demands  a  very  late  date 
for  the  documents.     See  Bruce,  Mir.  El.  Gospels,  p.  90. 


LATE  JEWISH-CHRISTIAN  INTERPOLATION        6 1 

In  order  to  do  this,  one  must  push  the  account  to  a 
date  when  the  Christians  were  beyond  the  reach  of 
authoritative  information.  The  requirement  is  not  fulfilled 
by  the  date  in  question.  At  that  time,  beyond  a  doubt, 
the  apostle  John  was  living,  an  eye-witness  of  Jesus,  a 
vigilant  guardian  of  the  evangelic  tradition.  If  Jesus  was 
born  of  Joseph  and  Mary  at  Nazareth,  I  fail  to  see  how  any 
story  that  He  was  conceived  by  the  Holy  Ghost  and  born 
of  the  virgin  Mary  at  Bethlehem  could  possibly  have 
arisen,  taken  literary  form,  and  obtained  general  credence 
enough  to  become  a  part  of  the  accepted  Gospel,  without 
its  coming  to  the  knowledge  of  John.  Coming  to  his 
knowledge,  it  would  have  met  with  vigorous  and  effective 
protest  that  would  have  insured  its  destruction  as  an 
accepted  Christian  tenet.  It  is  perfectly  safe  to  affirm 
that  no  important  statement  concerning  the  life  of  Christ 
could  have  survived  the  contradiction  of  John  at  any  time 
during  his  life.1 

A  plain  statement  of  facts  will  make  clear  the  utter 
untenableness  of  the  theory  as  it  stands. 

Keim  affirms  with  emphasis  that  the  origin  of  the  Infancy 
stories  was  Jewish-Christian.  In  speaking  of  the  Gospel 
of  Matthew  as  a  whole,  he  says  :  "  The  interval  has  been 
too  brief  to  sweep  away  an  historical  life  altogether,  the 
Jewish  and  Christian  circles  were  too  staid  and  too  well 
taught  to  substitute  dreams  for  facts,  the  Eastern  memory 
was  too  tenacious,  and  eye-witnesses  of  the  life  of  Jesus 
still  lived." 2 

With  the  change  that,  while  most  of  the  eye-witnesses  of 
the  life  of  Jesus  were  gone,  John  still  lived,  and  with  him 

1  We  may  strengthen  this  by  saying  that  no  new  interpretation  of  the 
Gospel  which  contradicted  John's  definite  teaching  could  have  gained 
credence  for  a  long  time  after  his  death. 

2  Page  74. 


62  GOSPEL  NARRATIVES 

many  of  those  who  were  disciples  of  the  eye-witnesses  (as 
Luke  affirms  in  his  preface)  were  living,  this  statement 
holds  true  of  the  time  when  the  fabrication  of  the  narratives 
of  the  birth  is  alleged  to  have  taken  place.  It  is  a  particu- 
larly clear  account  of  the  characteristics  of  the  group  in 
which  they  are  said  to  have  arisen.  And  we  may  add  the 
important  fact,  which  seems  to  be  persistently  over- 
looked by  many  writers  on  early  Christian  history,  that 
there  was  in  existence  an  organized  church,  jealous  of  the 
integrity  of  its  doctrine,  and  scrupulously  careful  in  main- 
taining without  change  the  testimony  of  the  apostles. 

Now  among  people  of  this  conservative  character, 
belonging  to  an  organization  like  the  early  church,  is  said 
to  have  arisen,  through  a  fusion  of  historical  curiosity  and 
doctrinal  activity,  the  story  of  the  virgin  birth  and  the  rest 
of  the  Infancy  narrative. 

Underneath  that  explanation  lies  the  delusion,  which  has 
obtained  an  unaccountable  hold  upon  many  minds  dealing 
with  this  subject,  that  at  any  time  a  Christian  church  could 
have  developed  in  vacuo  the  idea  of  the  virgin  birth  as  an 
explanation  of  Christ's  divinity.  The  doctrinal  implication 
is  not  obvious  enough.  It  cannot  be  placed  with  a  theory 
like  the  preexistence  which  is  a  doctrinal  conception,  veri- 
fiable only  in  the  light  of  reason,  because  it  lies  wholly  in 
the  historical  sphere,  is  doctrinal  only  secondarily  and  by 
inference,  and  could  be  verified  or  disproved  by  personal 
testimony.  It  was  not  an  abstract  conception,  but  a  state- 
ment involving  the  experience  of  a  family,  members  of 
which  had  been  well  known  in  the  church,  and  who,  either 
in  person  or  by  representative,  were  entitled  to  be  heard 
in  matters  which  concerned  their  own  private  history. 

By  hypothesis,  the  stories  go  back  to  a  longing  early 
felt  for  exacter  information  as  to  the  birth  and  childhood 
of  Jesus,     But  if  there  was  in  existence  any  person  who 


LA  TE  JE  WISH- CHRISTIAN  INTERPOLA  TION  63 

could  offer  information,  having  any  claim  to  authority, 
would  people  "  too  staid  and  well  taught  to  substitute 
dreams  for  facts  "  be  likely  to  sit  calmly  down  and  unfold 
from  inner  consciousness  such  fables  as  the  virgin  birth, 
and  the  rest  of  the  Infancy  story  ?  Along  with  this  fallacy 
is  another  which  vitiates  much  of  Keim's  reasoning  on  this 
subject, —  a  failure  to  discriminate  between  the  canonical 
and  noncanonical  writings  of  the  Infancy.  He  consist- 
ently treats  the  two  sets  of  documents  as  if  they  stood 
upon  the  same  level.1  He,  of  course,  considers  them  about 
equally  authoritative,  but  aside  from  the  question  of 
authority,  in  other  ways  the  documents  are  different.2 

Keim  says  :  "  The  longing  was  early  excited, — a  long- 
ing which  found  the  fullest  satisfaction  in  the  Apocryphal 
Gospels,  for  exacter  information  as  to  the  birth  and  child- 
hood of  Jesus." 

Again  he  says :  "  For  as  this  story,  following  in  the 
steps  of  our  older  Gospels,  is  fond  of  going  back  to  the 
Old  Testament,"  etc. 

This  indifferent  and  indiscriminate  treatment  of  records 
entirely  different  in  genesis  and  character  must  lead  to 
erroneous  conclusions.  In  the  passage  before  us  the  Gos- 
pel story  and  the  Apocryphal  legends  are  attributed  to 
the  same  origin, —  the  curiosity  of  Christians  as  to  the 
early  life  of  Jesus.  But  if  curiosity  on  the  part  of  Chris- 
tians can  account  for  the  contents  of  the  canonical  Infancy 
narrative,  it  cannot  account  for  the  omissions  from  it,  and 
the  omissions  are  just  as  significant  as  the  contents.  When 
has  it  ever  happened  that  unregulated  curiosity  could  be 

xSee,  however,  a  notable  exception,  Keim,  vol.  ii,  p.  137. 

2  For  a  statement  of  the  world-wide  difference  in  motive  and  viewpoint, 
see  Neander,  History  of  Dogma  (Bohn's  Trans.),  vol.  i,  p.  193  ;  also  on 
character  of  Gospel  narratives,  see  Stapfer,  Jesus  Christ  before  Ministry, 
Preface ;  also  for  clear  and  succinct  account,  see  Bernard,  Lit.  of  Second 
Century,  lect.  iii,  pp.  99-124. 


64  GOSPEL  NARRATIVES 

satisfied  with  the  meager  details  of  a  brief  and  fragmentary 
account  like  that  of  the  Infancy  section  ?  There  is  but  a 
scanty  group  of  brief  and  simple  statements  of  fact, 
not  enough  to  satisfy  the  curiosity  of  a  devout  and  intelli- 
gent believer  of  to-day.  The  affirmation  that  the  account 
is  the  work  of  those  who  were  so  eager  to  know  how 
Christ  came  into  the  world  and  lived  in  the  days  of  His 
youth  that  they  created  a  fictitious  story  to  satisfy  the 
longing  is  to  me  utterly  unbelievable.  I  can  well  believe 
that  it  is  the  literary  creation  of  devout  interest  in  the  early 
life  of  Jesus  working  upon  the  scanty  materials  of  author- 
itative information  that  were  within  reach.  That  it  was 
the  work  of  curiosity  beyond  the  reach  of  facts,  and  cut 
loose  from  the  limitations  of  truth,  I  cannot  accept.  This 
process  would  have  gone  much  further.  Such  a  process  we 
have  in  the  Apocryphal  stories,  which  are  indubitably  the 
work  of  those  who,  although  perhaps  no  more  curious  about 
the  life  of  Jesus  than  the  earlier  generations  of  believers, 
were  beyond  reach  of  authoritative  knowledge,  except  what 
had  already  been  given  in  the  Gospel  narrative.  They  were, 
moreover,  less  scrupulous  concerning  the  obligation  of 
strict  and  absolute  truthfulness. 

This  is  certainly  a  reasonable  explanation  of  the  strik- 
ing difference  between  the  two  sets  of  documents  concern- 
ing the  Infancy,  differences  which  Keim's  theory  overlooks 
altogether,  or  at  least  incorrectly  minimizes. 

Still  granting  that  the  date  is  approximately  correct, 
Keim's  theory  as  to  the  way  in  which  the  Infancy  narra- 
tive came  into  the  text  of  Matthew's  Gospel  is  open  to 
objection. 

Keim  maintains  that  the  entire  section  concerning  the 
infancy  of  Jesus  is  the  work  of  a  Jewish-Christian  inter- 
polator, who  is  the  author  of  a  series  of  essentially  related 
additions  to  the  Gospel,  marked  by  a  special  formula  of 


LATE  JEWISH-CHRISTIAN  INTERPOLATION        65 

introduction,  by  use  in  quotation  of  the  Hebrew  texts, 
and  by  a  liberalizing  tendency  of  thought. 

I  remark,  to  begin  with,  that  on  general  principles  it  is 
very  precarious  to  attribute  parts  of  a  book  having  a 
"  grand  underlying  unity "  to  a  different  author  on  the 
ground  of  such  slight  differences  in  the  phrasing  of  intro- 
ductory formulas  as  between  "  it  is  written  in  order  that 
it  might  be  fulfilled,  "  and  "  this  is  He  spoken  of  by  Isaiah 
the  prophet,  "  and  "  this  took  place  in  order  that  it  might 
be  fulfilled  which  was  written  by  the  prophet,  "  etc. 

The  formulas  are  generically  alike,  and  are  simply  vari- 
ations in  the  expression  of  one  idea,  which  a  writer, 
desirous  of  giving  literary  finish  to  his  work,  would  be 
very  apt  to  use. 

It  is  hardly  safer  to  divide  the  document  on  the  ground 
of  quotations  from  the  Septuagint  or  the  Hebrew  Bible. 
In  the  critical  discussions  of  the  unity  of  Matthew,  it  seems 
to  be  taken  for  granted  that  the  variation  in  the  method 
of  quotation  is  due  either  to  the  work  of  different  writers 
or  to  mere  chance. 

Is  it  not  at  least  conceivable  that  it  is  due  to  intelligent 
and  deliberate  choice  on  the  part  of  one  writer  familiar 
with  both  texts,  and  using  either  according  to  his  judg- 
ment of  its  value  for  the  purpose  in  hand  ? 

It  would  seem  also  that  the  theory  vastly  overworks 
the  possibility  of  interpolation.  Keim  speaks  of  the  inter- 
polations as  small ;  but  the  entire  Infancy  section,  to  say 
nothing  of  the  other  passages  attributed  to  the  inter- 
polator, can  hardly  be  called  small,  at  least  in  impor- 
tance. 

We  may  reasonably  believe  in  the  presence  of  a  certain 
limited  amount  of  interpolated  material  in  the  Gospels. 
In  the  days  of  copying,  notes  and  comments  had  a  way 
of  creeping  from  the  margin  into  the  texts.     It  may  have 

5 


66  GOSPEL  NARRATIVES 

been  that  in  the  body  of  the  narrative  an  unauthorized 
incident  may  now  and  then  have  been  added. 

But  this  hypothesis  calls  for  the  wholesale  fabrication  of 
an  entire  section  of  the  history,  in  which  the  actual  facts 
are  completely  subverted.  How  could  such  a  thing  have 
happened  ? 1  We  know  from  references  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment how  any  meddling  with  the  teaching  of  the  apostles 
was  looked  upon. 2  We  know  also  that  writings  purport- 
ing to  be  of  apostolic  origin  were  scrutinized  with  the 
utmost  care.  We  know  that  books,  the  authorship  of 
which  was  in  doubt,  were  looked  upon  with  suspicion, 
and  kept  outside  the  canon  until  the  church  was  con- 
vinced that  they  were  of  apostolic  origin.  We  know  that 
while  some  books  ultimately  accepted  as  canonical  were 
at  first  looked  upon  with  suspicion,  and  some  which  were 
at  first  quoted  as  authoritative  were  finally  rejected,  as  a 
whole  the  process  of  sifting  was  careful  and  satisfactory, 
and  a  broad  line  of  difference  marks  off  the  canonical  from 
the  noncanonical  books.3 

This  process  implies  such  careful  scrutiny  of  the  mater- 
ials contained  in  the  sacred  tradition  that  I  fail  to  see 
room  for  the  unauthorized  entrance  into  the  text  of  so 
large  an  amount  of  material,  containing  such  important 
additions  to  the  record.4 

The  careful  guardianship  exercised  by  the  early  church 
over  the  sacred  apostolic  tradition  forbids  such  a  sup- 

1  It  would  have  been  more  difficult  to  interpolate  new  material  into  the 
early  life  of  Jesus  because  of  the  absence  of  detail.  The  novelty  would  be 
much  more  conspicuous.     Cf.  Stanton,  Gospels  as  Historical  Documents,  p. 

257. 

8  Gal.  i,  8;  Rev.  xxii,  18. 

3  The  sacredness  of  apostolic  documents  is  seen  in  the  absence  of  attempts 
to  harmonize  by  changing  texts — e.g.,  Tatian  ;  cf.  Salmon,  In.  to  N.  T.t 
p.  126. 

*On  the  question  of  interpolations  see  Moffat,  Hist,  N.  T.,  Appendix. 


LATE  JEWISH-CHRISTIAN  INTERPOLATION       6? 

position.  There  are  other  considerations  still  more 
definite  and  specific  to  be  urged  against  the  theory. 

The  alleged  interpolator  described  by  the  critic  is  a 
strange  and  fantastic  figure,  in  whose  objective  reality  it  is 
very  hard  to  believe.  He  is  a  Jewish-Christian,  living 
after  the  fall  of  Jerusalem,  who  quotes  from  the  Hebrew 
Bible  in  the  interests  of  a  more  liberal  Christianity. 

He  must  be  marked,  of  course,  as  a  Jewish-Christian 
by  his  use  of  the  Hebrew  Bible,  and  as  a  liberalizing 
writer  by  the  tendency  of  the  passages  which  he  quotes, 
and  the  uses  he  make  of  them. 

A  Jewish-Christian,  contemporary  with  Luke,  so  zeal- 
ous for  a  liberal  interpretation  of  Christianity  as  to  attempt 
laboriously  to  modify  the  Gospel  of  Matthew  in  that 
interest,  could  hardly  have  remained  unknown  to  Luke. 
Their  common  interests  would  inevitably  have  drawn 
them  together,  as  Luke  and  Paul  were  drawn  together. 
Such  a  man  could  hardly  have  carried  out  a  revision  of 
Matthew's  Gospel  without  Luke's  being  a  party  to  it  and 
responsible  for  it.  Moreover,  in  the  time  of  Luke,  the 
reconstruction  of  Matthew's  Gospel  would  have  been  a 
work  of  supererogation.  His  Gospel  must  certainly  have 
been  in  course  of  construction,  and  would  have  served  the 
end  desired  more  perfectly  than  a  twisted  Gospel  of 
Matthew. 

The  distinctive  mark  of  the  interpolator  is  lacking  from 
the  crucial  passage  of  the  entire  section ;  namely,  that 
which  is  connected  with  the  virgin  birth  of  Christ,  quoted 
from  the  Septuagint.  Keim  recognizes  the  difficulty,  for 
he  twice  says  that  the  interpolator  used  that  version 
because  it  was  "  indispensable  to  his  purpose."  That  is  to 
say,  that  he  could  not  have  conveyed  the  idea  of  the  virgin 
birth  without  the  use  of  the  Septuagint  translation.  But 
why  did  he  care  to  teach  the  virgin  birth  at  all  ?     His 


68  GOSPEL   NARRATIVES 

purpose  was  to  make  the  Gospel  of  Matthew  more  "  lib- 
eral. "  What  possible  connection  has  the  virgin  birth 
with  that  purpose  ?  Is  it  seriously  held  that  he  quoted 
Isaiah  in  support  of  the  virgin  birth  as  an  attempt  to  make 
the  story  of  Christ's  life  more  attractive  to  Gentiles  ?  He 
could  have  done  this  more  effectively  by  entirely  discon- 
necting the  incident  from  prophecy.  That  the  idea  of  the 
virgin  birth  was  repugnant  to  deep  Jewish  feeling  is  the 
very  nearest  that  we  can  come  to  giving  the  use  of  this 
passage  a  liberal  turn.  It  looks,  however,  as  if  the  doc- 
trine were  connected  with  ancient  prophecy  in  order  to 
make  it  less  unpalatable  to  Jewish  minds. 

Keim's  attempt  to  break  the  force  of  the  use  of  the 
Septuagint  by  making  it  indispensable  to  his  purpose  turns 
upon  the  assumption  that  the  Greek  word  TiapQkvoq  is  an 
incorrect,  or,  at  least,  imperfect,  rendering  of  the  Hebrew 
word  n^7i?.  The  interpolator,  fond  as  he  was  of  quoting 
from  the  Hebrew  text,  was  compelled  to  depart  from  it 
in  this  instance  for  he  could  not  render  the  Hebrew 
word  correctly  without  obscuring  or  destroying  his  doc- 
trine. Now  the  evidence  upon  which  this  statement  is 
made  and  reiterated  by  one  critic  after  another  is  very 
slender. 

Gesenius  says  that  the  "  primary  idea  in  this  word  is 
not  that  of  unspotted  virginity,  for  which  the  Hebrews 
have  the  special  word  n7in?,  nor  does  it  primarily  signify 
the  unmarried  state,  but  simply  the  marriageable  age,  the 
age  of  puberty."  Upon  this  he  bases  the  statement  that 
in  the  Septuagint  Isaiah  vii,  14  is  incorrectly  rendered. 
This  totally  ignores  the  fact  that  in  the  etymology  of  a 
word  not  only  root  meanings,  but  also  uses,  are  to  be 
taken  into  consideration. 

The  only  passage  which  Gesenius  alleges  as  evidence 


LATE  JEWISH-CHRISTIAN  INTERPOLATION        69 

that  the  word  is  used  to  designate  any  other  than  a  virgin 
is  Isaiah  vii,  14,  the  very  passage  in  dispute.1 

As  a  matter  of  fact  there  is  no  conclusive  evidence  to 
show  that  the  word  was  ever  used  in  the  Old  Testament, 
except  with  reference  to  a  virgin. 

The  following  quotation  grants  all  that  is  reasonable  to 
the  negative  side  in  the  question : — 

"The  meaning  of  ^IP  is  from  its  comparatively  rare 
use  less  easily  determined.  In  Gen.  xxiv,  43,  it  is  used 
with  reference  to  Rebekah,  apparently  in  the  sense  of  a 
virgo  intacta. 

"  In  Ca.  vi,  8,  the  meaning  is  quite  uncertain.  The 
women  in  the  harem  of  Solomon,  distinguished  as  they 
are  from  the  wives  and  concubines,  might  or  might  not  be 
virgins.  We  cannot,  therefore,  argue  from  the  usage  of 
the  word  the  meaning  intended  in  Isaiah  vii,  14 ;  but  the 
whole  context  of  the  passage  as  well  as  the  analogy  of 
viii,  14,  suggests  that  the  sign  intended  did  not  consist  in 
anything  miraculous  in  the  birth  itself,  but  in  the  speedy 
coming  of  the  event,  and  in  the  symbolical  name  to  be 
given  to  the  child."  2  Personally,  I  believe  that  this  state- 
ment might  be  made  stronger  on  the  positive  side  without 
doing  violence  to  the  truth,  but  as  it  stands  it  deals  a 
death  blow  to  the  affirmation  that  the  Septuagint  is  an 
incorrect  rendering.  Dr.  G.  A.  Smith  may  be  perfectly 
correct  from  the  point  of  view  of  contemporary  under- 
standing in  making  the  motherhood  of  the  wonderful  Child 
uncertain  and  obscure,  but  Matthew  is  also  correct  in 
interpreting  the  passage,  in  the  light  of  the  actual  facts  of 
Christ's  life,  as  referring  to  the  wonderful  manner  of  His 
birth,  and  to  the  estate  and  character  of  His  mother. 

Mr.  Woods  suggests  also  that  the  Septuagint  transla- 

1  See  Gesenius  on  HD^JT,  Did.,  p.  788. 

2  Hastings  B.  D.  article,  "Virgin." 


70  GOSPEL  NARRATIVES 

tion  was  due  to  a  belief  that  the  woman  was  a  virgin  at 
the  time  the  prophecy  was  spoken,  though  married  per- 
haps afterwards.  The  Seventy  had  no  hint  of  a  virgin 
birth  in  mind. 

We  come,  then,  to  this  conclusion,  justified  by  all  the 
facts :  That  in  the  prophecy  an  indeterminate  word  was 
used,  which  allowed  Matthew  an  escape  from  the  virgin 
implication  if  he  wished  it,  but  since  he  did  not,  lent  itself 
according  to  familiar  usage,  without  violence  or  misinter- 
pretation, to  the  illustration  and  enforcement  of  his 
statement  concerning  the  manner  of  Christ's  birth.1 

The  use  of  the  Septuagint  in  this  important  passage  of 
the  section  attacked  does  much  to  cut  it  loose  from  the 
work  of  the  alleged  interpolator.  There  is,  however, 
much  stronger  evidence  pointing  in  the  same  direction. 
This  is  the  character  of  the  passages  introduced.  There 
is  contradiction  involved  in  the  very  thought  that  an 
interpolator  whose  interest  is  in  enforcing  a  liberalized 
form  of  Christianity  would  connect  the  passages  with  Old 
Testament  prophecies.  The  five  passages  from  prophecy 
which  are  connected  with  the  critical  points  of  Christ's 
early  life  are  five  separate  items  in  a  refutation  of  any 
other  theory  of  the  section  than  that  it  is  the  attempt  of  a 
Hebrew  to  recommend  Christ  to  his  own  countrymen  by 
connecting  even  the  earliest  events  in  His  life  with  Old 
Testament  prophecies.  And  with  this  interpretation 
other  features  of  the  section  agree. 

If  the  interpolator  introduced  the  story  of  Herod  and 
the  wise  men  in  the  interest  of  a  more  liberal  Christianity, 
he  has  failed  most  signally ;  for  he  has  succeeded  only  in 
imparting  a  more  intensely  Hebraic  cast  to  the  narrative. 
Let  us  look  at  it.  When  the  wise  men  appear,  they  ask 
the  question, "  Where  is  He  that  is  born  King  of  the  Jews  ?" 

1  Cf.  Beecher,  Prophets  and  Promise,  p.  334,  note. 


LATE  JEWISH-CHRISTIAN  INTERPOLATION        J I 

The  narrative  introduces  Gentiles  in  the  act  of  approach- 
ing Christ,  but  they  come  seeking  One  who  is  so  closely- 
identified  with  the  Jewish  nation  as  to  be  known  the 
world  over  as  the  King  of  the  Jews.  The  tribute  of  the 
wise  men  to  Israel  is  almost  as  marked  as  their  reverence 
for  the  Child  Himself.  It  falls  in  perfectly  with  the  gen- 
eral purpose  of  Matthew  to  get  outside  testimony  to  the 
fact  that  Jesus  was  the  long  watched-for  King  of  the 
Jewish  nation.  But  the  passage  does  not  serve  the  pur- 
pose of  a  liberalizing  interpolator.  He  would  have  been 
more  likely  to  invent  an  incident  which  would  exhibit 
Hebrews  in  the  act  of  inviting  strangers  to  share  with 
them  the  glory  of  the  Messiah's  reign,  and  interpreting 
the  Messiah  as  the  Saviour  of  the  world.  This  the  pas- 
sage does  not  do. 

The  Herod  incident  points  the  same  way.  The  account 
occupies  the  consistent,  unyielding  Jewish  attitude  toward 
Herod.  It  represents  him  as  doing  what  Jewish  patriots 
always  accused  him  of  doing,  viz.,  crushing  out  Jewish 
national  aspirations.  Herod  was  groping  in  the  dark 
with  his  blood-stained  sword  for  the  Infant  of  Promise, 
because  He  threatened  to  become  the  living  center 
around  which  Jewish  national  life  might  form  itself 
anew.  He  knew  little  about  the  world's  Saviour,  and 
probably  cared  less,  but  he  was  intensely  interested  in 
any  one  proclaimed  to  be  the  King  of  the  Jews.  The 
integrity  of  the  entire  incident  depends  upon  the  intensely 
Hebrew  conception  of  the  Messiah  as  a  national  king. 
Any  liberalizing  writer  who  invented  such  an  incident 
must  have  had  a  curiously  inverted  mind. 

There  is  no  clear  expression  of  Christian  universalism 
in  the  entire  Infancy  section  of  Matthew.  It  is  Jewish 
throughout.  And  more,  it  possesses  in  a  superlative 
degree  that  purpose  which  Keim  calls  the  "  one  literary 


J2  GOSPEL   NARRATIVES 

passion  "  of  the  book,  namely,  the  desire  "  to  prove  Jesus 
to  be  the  true  Messiah,  certainly  unexpected  in  this  form, 
yet  exactly  so  announced  by  all  the  utterances  of  God  in 
the  Old  Testament." 

He  adds  to  this  that  the  Gospel  "  appears  in  a  favorable 
light,  because  it  has  not  ignored  the  anti-Jewish  thorn  of 
offense  in  the  life  of  Jesus.  "  In  addition  to  this,  he  main- 
tains as  "complete  proof  of  its  essential  accuracy,"  that  it 
exhibits  "  a  Christ  elevated,  yet  human,  law-observing,  yet 
superior  to  law,  Jewish  yet  more  than  Jewish. " 

By  the  possession  of  all  these  features  of  the  Gospel, 
which  Keim  adduces  as  especially  worthy  of  commen- 
dation, the  Infancy  section  demonstrates  its  right  to  a 
place  in  the  Gospel.  It  is  apologetic  in  its  purpose.  It 
does  not  ignore  the  anti-Jewish  offense  in  the  birth  of 
Jesus,  rather  is  so  strongly  apologetic  that  it  risks  being 
used  as  an  authority  against  the  virgin  birth  in  order  to 
bring  forward  and  emphasize  Joseph's  tribute  in  word  and 
deed  to  the  innocence  of  Mary.  It  seeks  to  prove  the 
Messiahship  of  Jesus  by  linking  even  the  strange  and 
unaccountable  fact  of  His  birth  of  a  virgin  mother  to  Old 
Testament  prophecy.  It  exhibits  Him  as  elevated  in  His 
birth,  but  human  in  His  growth ;  Jewish  in  that  He  was 
born  into  a  Jewish  family  observant  of  all  the  rites  and 
ordinances  of  the  Jewish  law,  yet  more  than  Jewish  in  that 
in  His  advent  He  was  the  mystery  of  a  new  divine  creation. 
There  are  many  passages  in  Matthew  which  might  more 
easily  be  severed  from  the  main  body  of  the  sacred  tradi- 
tion than  this  section,  which,  by  its  grand  consonance  with 
the  entire  scheme  and  purpose  of  the  Gospel,  shows  itself 
an  unassailable  part  thereof.  Keim's  theory,  as  thus  far 
considered,  applies  only  to  the  Gospel  of  Matthew,  and 
the  arguments  offered  in  rebuttal  have  been  taken  from 
that  Gospel  only.     The  arguments  have  been  formed  on 


LATE  JEWISH-CHRISTIAN  INTERPOLATION        73 

the  basis  of  the  acceptance  of  a  late  date  for  the  origin  of 
the  Infancy  section. 

We  now  come  to  the  question  whether  the  assumption 
of  a  late  date  for  the  section  is  justified  by  the  facts.  Keim 
holds  that  the  additions  in  Matthew  and  the  story  of  Luke 
are  to  be  dated,  with  the  rest  of  Luke's  Gospel,  well  on 
this  side  of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  i.  e.y  somewhat 

between  a.  d.  80  and  90. 

I  see  no  sufficient  ground  for  placing  the  Gospel  of 
Luke,  as  a  whole,  so  late  as  the  above  date.  According 
to  the  accepted  chronology  the  events  recorded  in  the  Book 
of  the  Acts  end  somewhere  between  the  years  59  (Har- 
nack),  and  63  (Lightfoot),  and  the  composition  of  the  book 
is  almost  certainly  not  later  than  82  ( see  Ramsay,  "  St. 
Paul,"  p.  387).  The  Book  of  the  Acts  presupposes  the 
Gospel.  If  we  allow  a  reasonable  time  between  the  two 
parts  of  Luke's  work,  we  are  pushed  almost  inevitably  the 
other  side  of  the  fall  of  Jerusalem,  a.  d.  70.  * 

In  view  of  these  facts  the  reasons  adduced  for  the  later 
date  are  not  conclusive.  The  reason  which  Keim  alleges 
is  that  the  work  shows  evidence  of  having  been  written  in 
the  time  after  the  fall  of  Jerusalem  and  the  final  destruction 
of  the  Jewish  state,  in  that  the  interval  between  the  fall  of 
the  city  and  the  end  of  the  world  in  the  apocalyptic  dis- 
courses of  Jesus  has  indefinitely  widened,  and  that  a  slow 
historic  process  emerges  into  view,  in  which  the  Gentiles 
are  to  be  brought  under  the  Gospel;  while  Matthew  depicts 
the  two  events  almost  without  perspective. 

In  the  first  place,  in  a  discourse  of  such  tremendous 
import,  but  treated  so  fragmentarily  as  it  confessedly  is  in 
both  accounts,  it  is  impossible  to  draw  any  very  certain 

1On  the  date  of  Luke  see  Plummer,  Com.  on  Lk.,  Intro.,  sec.  iv ;  and 
for  novel  reasoning  for  an  early  date,  Blass,  Phil.  Gosp.,  chap.  iii.  Cf. 
also  Moffat,  Hist.  N.  T.  Prologue,  p.  272. 


74  GOSPEL  NARRATIVES 

conclusions  from  omissions  or  differences  in  emphasis 
between  the  two. 

In  the  second  place,  Matthew  does  make  an  interval 
between  the  two  events,  an  interval  as  great  as  that  of 
Luke,  although  he  treats  it  more  briefly  :  "  This  Gospel 
of  the  Kingdom  shall  be  preached  in  the  whole  world  for 
a  testimony  unto  all  nations,  and  then  shall  the  end  come." x 

Luke's  interest  in  all  things  Gentile,  leads  him  to  place 
greater  emphasis  upon  the  interval  in  which  the  Gentiles 
are  to  come  into  the  Kingdom.  The  details  added  to  the 
description  of  the  siege  in  Luke's  account  prove  nothing 
except,  perhaps,  a  more  vivid  imagination  for  such  details 
on  the  part  of  the  narrator. 2 

This  process  of  reasoning  brings  the  Infancy  stories 
closer  to  the  main  body  of  the  narrative.  We  are  justified, 
however,  in  making  a  much  sharper  statement  concerning 
them  than  this. 

They  show  every  evidence  of  being  not  late,  but  early, 
— one  of  the  very  earliest  elements  in  the  entire  New  Tes- 
tament. 

Nearly  all  who  discuss  this  question  seem  to  take  it  for 
granted  that  the  Infancy  stories  are  late  additions  to  the 
apostolic  tradition.  But  one  seeks  for  the  grounds  of 
this  conviction  in  vain. 

Keim  asserts  that  "  we  may  safely  call  these  accounts 
post-apostolic  on  the  ground  that  Paul  and  the  rest  of  the 
New  Testament  have  as  yet  no  inkling  of  a  miraculous 
birth  of  Jesus,  which  indeed  finds  no  strong  support  until 
after  the  middle  of  the  second  century,  in  the  pages  of 
Justin,  in  the  epistles  of  Ignatius,  and  in  the  Gospel  of 
James. "  3 

1  Matt,  xxiv,  14. 

2  See  Matt,  xxiv,  15 ;  Cf.  Gloag,  Intro.  Syn.  Gospels,  p.  246. 
8  Page  45. 


LATE  JEWISH-CHRISTIAN  INTERPOLATION        f$ 

He  also  says  that  "  the  Jewish-Christian  portions,  even 
of  the  introductory  narrative,  in  spirit,  matter,  and  form, 
show  the  coloring  of  a  later  time  than  that  of  Matthew 
himself. " 

It  would  be  interesting  to  have  the  evidences  for  this 
last  assertion  clearly  set  forth.  In  the  "  serried  ranks  of 
annotations, "  of  which  the  great  critic  is  justly  proud, 
none  are  devoted  to  this  particular  assertion.  And  one 
may  safely  assert  that  they  are  not  forthcoming  because 
they  are  not  in  existence.  There  are  but  three  particulars 
in  the  entire  narratives  which  may,  with  any  plausibility, 
be  urged  in  proof  of  a  late  origin.  All  three  are  in  Luke. 
First  is  the  alleged  metaphysical  implication  of  the  sen- 
tences attributed  to  the  angel  in  which  Jesus  is  called  the 
Son  of  God.1  In  regard  to  this  it  may  reasonably  be 
suggested  that  if  any  metaphysical  statement  were  intended, 
it  would  not  have  been  allowed  to  remain  implicit  in  a  mere 
statement,  but  would  have  been  reenforced  by  exposition 
and  argument.  It  would  have  filled  a  larger  place  in  the 
rest  of  the  Gospel.  The  dependence  of  the  divine  Son- 
ship  of  Jesus  upon  the  method  of  His  birth  is  not  stated 
again.  And  the  very  wording  of  the  passage  indicates 
the  meaning :  "  He  shall  be  great,  and  shall  be  called  the 
Son  of  the  Most  High ;  and  the  Lord  God  shall  give  Him 
the  throne  of  His  father  David,  and  He  shall  reign  over 
the  house  of  Jacob  for  ever,  and  of  His  kingdom  there 
shall  be  no  end.  .  .  .  The  Holy  Ghost  shall  come  upon 
thee,  and  the  power  of  the  Most  High  shall  overshadow 
thee :  wherefore  also  the  holy  thing  which  shall  be  born 
shall  be  called  the  Son  of  God.  " 2 

In  this  passage  nothing  further  is  intended  than  the  as- 
sertion that  by  the  power  of  God,  immediately  exercised, 
she  should  become  the  mother  of  the  Messiah  promised 
1  See  discussion  below,  p.  ioi.  *  Luke  i,  32,  35. 


y6  GOSPEL   NARRATIVES 

to  the  house  of  David,  who  by  His  transcendent  holiness 
should  gain  the  Messianic  title,  the  Son  of  God. 

The  second  feature  which  is  urged  in  favor  of  a  late 
origin  is  the  universalism  in  Simeon's  address,  "  Mine  eyes 
have  seen  thy  salvation,1  which  thou  hast  prepared  before 
the  face  of  all  peoples.  A  light  for  the  unveiling  of  the 
Gentiles  (margin)." 

In  answer,  we  urge  that  this  is  no  more  than  is  con- 
tained in  the  first  statement  of  the  promise  made  to 
Abraham,2  and  the  very  next  sentence  shows  us  that  we 
are  still  moving  in  the  circle  of  Old  Testament  notions : 
"  The  glory  of  thy  people  Israel." 

Again,  the  minor  note  in  Simeon's  address :  "  Behold, 
this  child  is  set  for  the  falling  and  the  rising  of  many  in 
Israel ;  and  for  a  sign  which  is  spoken  against ;  yea  and 
a  sword  shall  pierce  through  thine  own  soul;  that  thoughts 
out  of  many  hearts  may  be  revealed.  "  This  sentence 
ought  to  be  convincing  evidence  of  an  early  origin  for  the 
account  in  which  it  is  found ;  for  it  would  have  been  im- 
possible for  any  Christian  to  refer  in  that  vague  and  ellip- 
tical manner  to  the  great  catastrophe  of  Christ's  death, 
had  it  already  occurred.  The  confident  optimism  of  the 
narrative  is  scarcely  qualified  by  this  word  of  Simeon,  who 
has  caught  the  minor  note  of  prophecy,  such  as  was 
sounded  in  Isaiah,  ch.  53,  and  also  has  seen  more  deeply 
than  others  into  the  corruptions  of  the  age,  which  promised 
sorrow  for  the  Messiah  and  those  who  loved  Him.  In 
favor  of  an  early  origin  for  the  Infancy  story  may  be  urged 
the  entire  spirit,  form,  and  matter  of  the  narratives.  They 
move  within  the  narrow  limits  of  Jewish-Messianic  con- 
victions in  their  very  first  application  to  Jesus.  They 
contain  no  hint  of  the  later  doctrinal  expansion,  which 
brought  the  death  of  Christ  into  the  framework  of  Chris- 
1  Luke  ii,  29-32.  2  Gen.  xii,  1-3. 


LATE  JEWISH- CHRISTIAN  INTERPOLATION         J  J 

tian  thinking.  They  are  much  closer  to  the  Old  Testa- 
ment even  than  the  Epistle  of  James. 

Of  the  songs  in  Luke,  Ryle  and  James  in  the  introduc- 
tion to  their  edition  of  the  Psalms  of  Solomon,  say,  "  The 
writings  which,  in  our  opinion,  most  clearly  approach  our 
Psalms  in  style  and  character  are  the  hymns  preserved  in 
the  early  chapters  of  St.  Luke's  Gospel,  which  in  point 
of  date  of  composition  probably  stand  nearer  to  the 
Psalms  of  Solomon  (  70-40  b.  c.  )  than  any  other  portion 
of  the  New  Testament  (intro.,  p.  lx.)." 

In  view  of  these  facts,  the  contention  for  a  late  date  is 
not  at  all  successful. 

Keim's  statement  concerning  Paul  and  the  other  writers 
of  the  New  Testament  will  be  considered  in  a  later  chap- 
ter. We  now  pause  to  take  up  the  affirmation  that  the 
Infancy  narratives  find  no  strong  support  until  after  the 
middle  of  the  second  century.  There  may  be  some  dif- 
ference of  opinion  as  to  what  constitutes  "  strong  "  support, 
but  considering  all  the  circumstances  the  evidence  for  the 
Infancy  documents  is  remarkably  conclusive.  It  must  be 
remembered  that  the  first  half  of  the  second  century  is 
the  most  obscure  period  in  the  history  of  the  church. 
The  literary  remains  are  scanty,  and  references  are  frag- 
mentary. Nevertheless,  the  existence  and  circulation  of 
Christian  documents  in  all  essentials  corresponding  to 
our  Gospels  is  clearly  manifest,  and  among  them  the 
narratives  concerning  the  birth  and  infancy  must  be 
included. 

To  begin  with,  we  may  safely  take  issue  with  Keim  on 
the  date  of  Ignatius.  The  genuineness  of  his  letters  in 
the  shorter  Greek  form  is  now  practically  undisputed,  and 
the  concensus  of  recent  scholarship  is  that  his  martyrdom 
occurred  under  Trajan,  and  that  consequently  the  letters 
are  to  be  dated  between  a.  d.  i  10  and  115  (no  Light- 


78  GOSPEL  NARRATIVES 

foot,  110-115  Stanton.  Between  no  and  117,  Harnack, 
who  holds  that  it  may  possibly  be  as  late  as  125). 

These  letters  are  full  of  allusions  to  the  miraculous 
birth.   (See   Epistle  to   Ephesians,  chaps,  xviii,  xix,  etc.) 

In  the  19th  chapter  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians 
he  says:"  Now  the  virginity  of  Mary  was  hidden  from  the 
Prince  of  this  world,  as  was  also  her  offspring,  and  the 
death  of  the  Lord;  three  mysteries  of  renown  which  were 
wrought  in  silence  by  God.  How  then  was  He  manifested 
to  the  ages  ?  A  star  shone  forth  in  heaven  above  all  the 
stars,  the  light  of  which  was  inexpressible,  while  its 
novelty  struck  men  with  astonishment.  And  all  the  rest 
of  the  stars,  with  the  sun  and  moon,  formed  a  chorus  to 
this  star,  and  its  light  was  exceeding  great  above  them  all. " 

The  latter  part  of  the  foregoing  citation  is  commented 
upon  by  Dr.  Stanton  (Gospels  as  Hist.  Doc,  pt.  I,  p.  15) 
as  exhibiting  the  use  of  an  extra-canonical  source,  either 
oral  or  written.  He  says  of  the  star-chorus :  "  This  de- 
scription differs  markedly  from  the  simple  narrative  of  St. 
Matthew.  It  is  unlikely  that  Ignatius  is  merely  giving 
the  rein  to  his  imagination.  We  may  conjecture  that  he 
had  obtained  the  idea  from  the  same  source,  whatever 
that  was,  as  the  words  of  the  risen  Christ  which  have  just 
been  discussed. " 

If  this  supposition  is  correct,  then  we  have  the  follow- 
ing interesting  fact :  That  there  was  in  circulation  in  the 
first  quarter  of  the  second  century  a  story  based  upon  St. 
Matthew's  account  and  differing  from  it  only  in  the  addi- 
tion of  picturesque  and  illustrative  details,  and  not  yet 
cut  loose  from  the  primitive  narrative  in  the  unrestrained 
use  of  the  imagination.  Since  such  a  story  must  have  been 
in  existence  some  time  in  order  to  gain  circulation  and  a  cer- 
tain amount  of  authority,  the  fact  above  stated  alone  goes  a 
long  way  toward  pushing  the  canonical  narrative  into  the 


LATE  JEWISH-CHRISTIAN  INTERPOLATION        79 

first  century.  The  fragment  exhibits  clearly  the  working  of 
the  mythic  temper,  and  serves  to  emphasize  the  restrained 
sobriety  of  Matthew's  account  with  its  emphasis  upon  cen- 
tral facts  and  neglect  of  details.  The  statement  of  Ignatius, 
however  derived,  represents  the  transition  from  the  histori- 
cal spirit  of  the  evangelists  to  the  wonder-mongering  spirit 
of  the  apocryphal  gospels. 

In  the  Epistle  to  the  Trallians,1  he  says :  "  Stop  your 
ears,  therefore,  when  any  one  speaks  to  you  at  variance  with 
Jesus  Christ,  who  was  descended  from  David,  and  was 
also  of  Mary,  who  was  truly  born  and  did  eat  and  drink. 
He  was  truly  persecuted  under  Pontius  Pilate,  He  was 
truly  crucified  and  died,  in  the  sight  of  beings  in  heaven, 
and  on  earth,  and  under  the  earth.  He  was  also  truly 
raised  from  the  dead,"  etc.  The  succession  of  statements 
recalls  to  mind  the  Apostles'  Creed,  and  the  somewhat 
formal  and  stereotyped  phraseology  indicates  that  it  was 
taken  from  some  of  those  forms  of  catechetical  instruc- 
tion which  afterwards  developed  into  the  old  Roman  sym- 
bol and  the  creeds. 

His  statements  show  clearly  enough  that  the  belief  in 
the  birth  of  Christ  as  narrated  in  the  Gospels  was  con- 
sidered in  the  first  quarter  of  the  second  century  an  essen- 
tial item  in  the  historic  faith,  and  also  that  denial  of  it  was 
confined  to  those  who  questioned  the  reality  of  Christ's 
earthly  life  throughout.  The  alternatives  of  belief,  as 
exhibited  in  the  writings  of  Ignatius,  seem  to  have  been — 
the  miraculous  birth  or  docetism.2 

The  writings  of  Justin  Martyr  belong  to  a  slightly 
later  date,  but  in  the  statements  and  arguments  which 
occupy  many  chapters  of  his  works,  there  are  several 
interesting  items.  In  the  first  place,  he  confined  himself 
with  surprising  carefulness  to  the  canonical  accounts. 
1  Cap.  1,  xx.  3  See  Note  D,  end  of  Volume. 


80  GOSPEL   NARRATIVES 

There  are  several  references  to  what  may  possibly  be 
noncanonical  sources,1  but  the  changes  are  very  slight, 
and  contain  merely  explanatory  or  illustrative  material — 
there  is  no  invention  of  additional  incidents.  He  uses 
both  Gospels  (see  Apol.  I:  33),  and  does  not  deviate  from 
them  in  any  matters  of  essential  fact. 

This  latter  consideration  is  especially  important,  for  it 
shows  that  down  to  the  middle  of  the  second  century 
the  canonical  account  was  kept  by  orthodox  church 
teachers  free  from  legendary  invention,  and  treated  as 
authoritative  in  connection  with  the  birth  of  Christ.2 
The  interval  which  separates  Justin  from  the  Gospels  of 
Matthew  and  Luke,3  together  -with  the  general  accuracy 
of  his  citations,  indicates  the  great  care  with  which  the 
evangelic  tradition  of  the  Lord's  birth  was  guarded. 
Again,  in  the  Dialogue,  Justin  put  into  the  mouth  of  his 
imaginary  opponent  arguments  against  the  miraculous 
birth  which  must  have  been  derived  from  Jewish  sources, 
and  represent  with  great  accuracy  the  unyielding  ultra- 
Jewish  attitude  toward  the  whole  subject.  (See  note  and 
reference  on  page  35.) 

This  reference,  together  with  the  fact  that  there  was 
throughout  the  second  century,  and  reaching  back  to  the 
period  of  the  apostles,  an  unbroken  succession  of  heret- 
ical teachers  (Cerinthus,  Carpocrates,  Basilides,  Valen- 
tinus,  Marcion,  Gnostics,  Docetae,  Ebionites,  Ophites,  etc., 
some  of  whom  did  and  some  did  not  believe  in  the 
miraculous  birth,  but  all  of  whom  testify  to  its  prevalence 
as  a  Christian  doctrine)  whose  fundamental  tenets  com- 
pelled them  to  the  rejection  of  the  Infancy  narratives, 
shows  clearly  that  the  canonical  story  of  Christ's  birth 

1  See  Apology  32,  Dialogue  with  Trypho,  23,  43,  100. 

1  Dial.  77,  78,  88,  102,  etc. 

9  Cf.  Dial.  Cap.  75,  with  Matt,  xvi,  18. 


LA  TE  JE  WISH-  CHRISTIAN  INTER  POL  A  TION       8  I 

did  not  creep  into  a  place  of  authority,  but  had  been  pre- 
served with  care  as  a  sacred  deposit  after  having  passed 
through  the  fires  of  controversy.  It  is  inconceivable  that 
a  section  of  the  narrative  should  have  endured  such  in- 
tense opposition  had  it  not  been  well  authenticated  as 
apostolic  in  its  origin.  And  throughout  the  entire  con- 
troversy, there  is  no  shred  of  documentary  evidence  from 
either  side  to  indicate  that  any  one  questioned  the  deri- 
vation of  the  Infancy  documents  from  the  apostolic  age. 

Upon  the  basis  of  careful  investigation  of  the  patristic 
literature,  Dr.  Gore  says:  "We  have  evidence  then  that 
the  virgin  birth  held  a  prominent  place  in  the  second  century 
tradition  or  creed  of  the  churches  of  Rome,  Greece, 
Africa,  Asia,  Syria,  and  Palestine,  Arabia.  Such  a  con- 
sensus in  the  second  century  reaching  back  to  its  begin- 
ning, among  very  independent  churches,  seems  to  us, 
apart  from  any  question  of  the  Gospels,  to  prove  for  the 
belief  an  Apostolic  origin. 

It  could  not  have  taken  such  an  undisputed  position  \ 
unless  it  had  really  had  the  countenance  of  the  Apostolic 
founders  of  churches,  of  Peter  and  Paul  and  John,  of 
James  and  the  Lord's,  brethren."  l  It  would  seem  as  if 
Keim's  assertion  that  the  narrative  of  the  Infancy  receives 
no  strong  support  until  after  the  middle  of  the  second 
century  is  effectually  disposed  of. 2  (See  notes  B  and  C 
at  end  of  chapter.) 

One  other  general  consideration  against  Keim's  view 
should  be  taken  into  account.  The  supposition  that  the 
Infancy  narrative  is  at  once  Jewish  and  late  would  seem 
to  be  altogether  inadmissible.  In  order  to  be  late  the 
narrative  must  be  non-Jewish  for  the  following  reasons : 

First.  The  Jewish  Christian  church  at  Jerusalem  was 

1  See  Admission  of  Lobstein  on  this  point  in  Birth  of  Christ :    Preface. 
1  Dissertations,  pp.  48,  49.      See  entire  statement. 


82  GOSPEL  NARRATIVES 

finally  broken  up  in  a.  d.  135.  No  other  Jewish-Christian 
community  was  strong  enough  to  have  created  a  legend 
which  would  have  been  accepted  by  the  church  in  general. 

Second.  From  the  death  of  James  (a.  d.  62  or  63)  until 
the  date  of  Hadrian's  edict  against  the  Jews  the  control  of 
the  Jerusalem  church  was  vested  in  a  succession  of  bishops, 
all  of  whom  according  to  Eusebius1  (who  uses  Hege- 
sippus  as  authority)  were  "  of  the  circumcision,  "  i.  e.,  strict 
observance  Jews,  and  the  church  was  of  the  same  character. 

"  During  the  period,  indeed  from  the  outbreak  of 
troubles,  a.  d.  62,  till  long  after  the  suppression  of  Barco- 
chab's  revolt,  they  must  often  have  been  sorely  harassed 
by  political  convulsions,  and  by  the  persecutions  which 
they  had  to  endure  at  the  hands  of  their  compatriots  who 
did  not  believe  in  Jesus." 2 

It  is  extremely  unlikely  that  churches  ruled  by  strictly 
Jewish  bishops,  and  passing  through  such  tumultuous 
experiences,  would  have  originated  innovations  in  the 
evangelic  tradition  so  serious  as  are  involved  in  the  Infancy 
narrative.  All  considerations,  therefore,  of  which  there 
are  many,  pointing  to  an  early  Palestinian  origin,  as 
strongly  point  to  a  date  for  their  origination  previous  to 
the  death  of  James,  in  the  very  heart  of  the  Apostolic  era.3 

1  H.  E.,  Bk.  iv,  cap.  v. 

J  Stanton,  Gospels  as  Hist.  Doc,  Pt.  I,  p.  253. 

8  For  statement  of  probable  occasion  when  questionings  on  subject  of 
Christ's  birth  arose  see  Gore  :  Dissert.,  p.  12. 

NOTE  A 

Gardner  (Historical  View  of  the  New  Testament,  p.  163)  repeats  this 
argument  of  Keim  but  cannot  be  said  to  have  added  greatly  to  its  cogency. 
The  argument  exhibits  a  naive  unconsciousness  of  a  perfectly  obvious  dis- 
tinction. Gardner  says  :  "  It  is  quite  true  that  Matthew  and  Luke  tell  both 
of  the  miraculous  birth  and  the  descent  of  the  Spirit  at  baptism,  but  in  doing 
so  they  combine  two  inconsistent  explanations  of  the  same  truth.  For  it  is 
clear  that  if  Jesus  was  filled  with  the  Spirit  from  His  mother's  womb,  there 
was  no  need  that  that  Spirit  should  come  upon  Him  at  His  baptism."     To 


LATE  JEWISH-CHRISTIAN  INTERPOLATION        83 

say  nothing  of  the  failure  to  distinguish  (as  Keim  has  done)  between  the 
Spirit  looked  upon  as  creative  energy  and  as  a  person,  this  argument  over- 
looks the  fact  that  all  the  requirements  of  the  Gospel  narrative  which  brings 
together  the  miraculous  birth  and  the  baptism  would  be  met  by  the  simple 
and  necessary  supposition,  that  the  Spirit  who  had  been  energizing  in  the 
life  and  being  of  Jesus  from  the  beginning  was  then  consciously  and  com- 
pletely accepted  in  His  personal  manifestation  as  Inspirer  and  Guide.  The 
experience  of  the  baptism  certainly  could  not  have  been  without  some  rela- 
tionship to  Jesus'  past  experience.  How  did  He  know  that  the  Spirit  had 
been  manifested  to  Him,  and  bestowed  in  full  measure  upon  Him  at  the 
Baptism  ?  Simply  because  the  lofty  experience  of  that  hour  at  the  Jordan, 
the  critical  importance  of  which  I  would  not  for  a  moment  seem  to  under- 
estimate, was  the  culmination  of  a  series  of  gracious  experiences,  (the  full 
significance  of  which  he  may  not  have  hitherto  understood)  which  reached 
back  even  to  His  childhood.  The  baptismal  experience  was  the  key  which 
unlocked  the  secret  of  His  whole  life.  But  its  importance  and  value  con- 
sist in  the  fact  that  it  was  so  related  to  His  entire  life,  past  and  future,  as 
to  give  us  a  revelation  of  its  quality  throughout.  Instead  of  being  inconsist- 
ent with  the  account  of  the  Baptism,  the  miraculous  birth  and  the  story 
of  the  youthful  visit  at  Jerusalem  are  necessary  to  any  intelligible  explana- 
tion of  the  Baptism.  The  latter  experience  is  intelligible  only  as  a  culmi- 
nating revelation  of  an  inspired  and  God-filled  life.  The  real  significance 
of  this  argument  of  Keim  and  Gardner  is  that  up  to  the  time  of  the  Bap- 
tism, Jesus  was  not  the  Son  of  God  in  any  special  sense,  that  He  had  no 
relationship,  conscious  or  unconscious,  to  the  Holy  Spirit ;  that  He  was  (in 
the  theological  sense)  a  natural  man  and  that,  at  the  Baptism,  a  new  being 
was  created.  This  robs  the  entire  life  of  Jesus  previous  to  His  ministry  of 
any  significance  or  value.  Gardner  also  argues  from  a  parallelism  between 
the  experience  of  the  believer  and  that  of  the  Master.  "  Paul  says  that 
the  followers  of  Christ  are  buried  with  Him  in  baptism.  This  view  is  ex- 
plicable only  on  the  supposition  that  the  Spirit  was  given  to  believers  as  to 
their  Master  in  baptism.  This  new  birth  they  share  with  Him,  that  they 
may  also  share  His  life." 

It  is,  of  course,  not  fair  to  force  an  inference  too  far,  but  the  implication 
of  this  last  sentence  inevitably  carries  one  a  long  way.  It,  of  course,  im- 
plies that  at  His  baptism  the  Lord  experienced  a  "new  birth."  Not  only 
are  we  to  be  born  again,  but  Jesus  had  to  be  born  again,  and  the  question 
necessarily  arises :  What  was  Jesus  before  this  new  birth  occurred  ?  What 
did  His  new  birth  involve  ?  In  our  case  it  involves  a  change  from  a  natural 
unspiritual,  sinful  condition  of  greater  or  less  alienation  from  God  into  a  new 
filial  and  spiritual  temper  and  life.  Does  the  parallel  hold  in  the  case  of 
Jesus  ?  Was  He  changed  by  this  new  birth  from  a  sinner  into  God's  anointed, 
or  merely  from  a  clod  lacking  the   divine  fire?     For  if  the  experience 


84  GOSPEL  NARRATIVES 

at  the  baptism  necessarily  excludes  a  miraculous  conception  by  the  power  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  it  with  equal  force  excludes  all  inspiration  or  even  vital 
contact  with  the  Spirit  from  all  the  pre-baptismal  life  of  Jesus.  It  seems  to 
me  that  the  argument  carries  those  who  make  it  into  deeper  waters  than  they 
are  aware. 

This  question  apart,  however,  I  doubt  the  force  of  the  parallel.  For  I 
do  not  believe  that  any  experience  comparable  with  that  of  Jesus  at  the 
Jordan  was  ever  undergone  by  a  believer  de  novo.  No  man  ever  consciously 
and  completely  entered  into  a  gracious  relationship  of  dependence  and  obedi- 
ence with  the  Spirit  as  a  Person  without  premonitions,  without  anticipatory 
experiences,  without  being  moved  and  won  by  the  Spirit  in  previous  con- 
scious experiences,  and  certainly  not  without  the  secret  workings  of  the 
Spirit  in  the  life.  Even  if  the  supposition  that  the  birth  of  Jesus  was  purely 
natural  were  true,  I  cannot  believe  that  the  Baptism  was  so  entirely  revolu- 
tionary and  sporadic  as  these  statements  imply.  In  short  the  argument 
against  the  miraculous  birth  drawn  from  the  experience  at  the  Jordan  fails 
utterly  to  justify  itself. 

NOTE   B 

The  lack  of  documentary  evidence  as  to  the  use  of  the  creed  in  the 
sub-apostolic  age  is  at  least  partially  explained  by  the  fact  that  the  Chris- 
tians kept  the  statements  of  their  belief  as  sacred  arcana  not  on  any 
account  to  be  made  common  property  by  being  committed  to  writing  and 
put  into  circulation,  but  to  be  preserved  religiously  in  the  memory.  Lumby 
in  the  first  chapter  of  his  book  on  the  History  of  the  Creeds  shows  this 
fact  and  adduces  the  literature  which  exhibits  it.  When  the  creeds  first 
appear  in  Christian  literature,  the  creeds  of  all  the  historic  churches  are  so 
nearly  identical  as  to  point  unmistakably  to  a  common  source,  and  the  very 
fact  that  they  were  looked  upon  as  sacred,  too  sacred  to  be  communicated 
to  the  public  or  put  in  writing,  together  with  the  no  less  certain  fact  that 
during  the  period  to  which  our  documents  refer,  creeds  underwent  prac- 
tically no  changes  except  in  minor  points  of  phraseology,  is  strong  evi- 
dence of  their  authoritative  apostolic  origin.      (Cambridge,  1880.) 

NOTE   C 

H.  B.  Swete  (The  Apostles'  Creed,  Cam.,  1894,  pp,  42,  #•)  in  rebut" 
tal  of  Harnack,  has  made  a  very  clear  exhibition  of  the  evidence  for  the 
antiquity  of  the  doctrine  of  the  miraculous  birth. 

From  the  statement  of  the  Roman  Creed  of  the  fourth  century,  in  which 
the  miraculous  birth  holds  a  forward  place  he  follows  the  belief,  step  by 
step,  through  Irenaeus,  Tertullian,  Justin  Martyr,  Aristides,  Ignatius.  A 
collateral  line  of  evidence  is  followed  through  the  various  heretical  sects 
and  teachers  to  the  beginning  of  the  second  century.     Those  heresiarchs 


LA  TE  JE  WISH-  CHRISTIAN  INTERPOLA  TION         85 

who  accept  the  fact  do  so  "  on  the  authority  of  the  Gospels,  and  not  as  a 
tradition  inherited  from  the  church  ;"  and  those  who  deny  do  not  allege  on 
their  side  a  lack  of  apostolic  authority  for  the  doctrine. 

Still  another  thread  of  proof  is  connected  with  the  Jewish  attitude 
toward  the  doctrine.  Finding  that  the  Christians  were  united  in  denying 
Joseph's  paternity  and  evidently  unable  to  adduce  any  satisfactory  evidence 
in  its  favor,  they  accepted  the  denial  and  made  it  the  basis  of  an  attack 
upon  the  honor  of  Jesus'  home.  This  was  familiar  argument  to  Celsus. 
The  details  of  this  disgusting  and  blasphemous  Pantheras  story  lends  proba- 
bility to  the  view  that  it  goes  back  anterior  to  the  age  of  Hadrian,  and  the 
"impression  is  confirmed  which  has  been  received  from  the  letters  of 
Ignatius  as  to  the  wide  diffusion  of  this  belief  among  Christians  of  the 
generation  which  immediately  followed  the  death  of  St.  John." 

For  the  sources  of  the  doctrine  we  are  thus  forced  back  to  the  Gospels 
themselves.  Justin  states  that  the  doctrine  was  learned  from  the  Memoirs, 
and  his  references  are  mostly  to  St.  Luke,  though  not  exclusively. 
Ignatius,  on  the  other  hand,  appears  to  be  independent  of  both  narrators. 

"If  he  leans  to  either,  it  is  to  St.  Matthew,  but,  on  the  whole,  his 
words  leave  the  impression  that  he  either  refers  to  some  third  document 
perhaps  akin  to  our  first  Gospel,  or  is  simply  handing  in  a  fact  which  had 
been  taught  him  orally,  probably  when  he  first  received  the  Faith.  The 
latter  supposition  carries  us  back,  perhaps  far  back,  into  the  first  century." 

The  story  of  the  Infancy  lay  outside  the  plan  both  of  Mark  and  John, 
but  forms  an  integral  part  of  Luke's  story.  Marcion's  mutilated  Gospel 
began  with  an  arbitrary  fusion  of  iii,  I,  and  iv,  31,  yet  if,  as  is  altogether  prob- 
able, the  first  two  chapters  formed  a  part  of  the  original  Gospel,  "  the  most 
important  record  of  the  conception  is  carried  back,  let  us  say,  to  A.  D.  75- 
80,  a  terminus  ad  quetn  for  the  publication  of  the  third  Gospel  accepted  by 
one  of  the  most  cautious  and  far  seeing  of  living  New  Testament  scholars," 
(?'.  e.  Sanday).  Then  follows  a  most  interesting  statement  of  facts  which 
have  been  generally  overlooked  in  the  discussion. 

"  The  style  of  Luke  i,  5  to  ii,  52,  clearly  points  to  sources  older  than  the 
Gospel  itself.  There  are  indeed  correspondences  of  style  and  vocabulary 
which  connect  this  section  with  the  rest  of  the  Gospel  and  show  that  the 
whole  book  has  passed  through  the  hands  of  the  same  compiler  ;  yet  the 
section  betrays  unmistakably,  as  we  think,  an  independent  origin.  It  has 
an  archaic  tone  ;  its  thought  and  spirit  are  Judseo-Christian  ;  the  hymns 
which  characterize  it  are  permeated  by  the  thought  and  language  of  the 
Old  Testament ;  the  narrative  preserves  a  simplicity  which  contrasts  not 
only  with  St.  Luke's  formal  dialogue,  but  with  his  rendering  of  the  Syn- 
optic tradition.  "  Every  consideration  thus  urges  to  the  acceptance  of  an 
early  date  for  the  Infancy  narratives. 


CHAPTER  IV 

THE   THEORY   OF   LATE   COMPOSITE    ORIGIN SOLTAU 

The  theory  of  Soltau1  as  to  the  origin  of  the  Infancy 
stories  differs  somewhat  from  Keim's,  especially  in  the 
place  which  he  gives  to  heathen  influences,  and  in  his 
assertion  of  a  later  date  for  completion  of  the  story.  He 
says :  "  Toward  the  end  of  the  first  century  Bethlehem 
was  regarded  as  the  real  birthplace  of  Jesus.  Upon  this 
foundation  were  built  up  the  two  narratives  which  now 
stand  at  the  beginning  of  the  first  and  third  Gospels." 2 

It  will  be  seen  that  the  foundation  of  the  story  was  not 
laid  until  about  the  end  of  the  first  century.  The  work 
of  developing  the  legend  must  have  been  done  after  that 
date. 

The  author  next  proceeds  to  involve  Luke  in  the  chron- 
ological difficulty  concerning  the  death  of  Herod.  He 
says  flatly,  "  Herod  the  Great,  under  whom  Jesus  is  sup- 
posed to  have  been  born,  was  already  dead."  This  argu- 
ment has  been  very  generally  abandoned  as  incorrect.3 

In  stating  some  of  the  difficulties  involved  in  the  two 
stories,  Soltau  makes  at  least  one  serious  error  of  his  own. 
He  says, "  We  learn  from  Matthew,  on  the  other  hand,  that 
Bethlehem  was  the  real  native  place  of  Joseph  and  Mary."  4 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  we  do  not  learn  anything  of  the  kind. 

1  The  Birth  of  Jesus  Christ,  by  W.  Soltau,  A.  and  C.  Black,  London. 

2  P.  25,  cf.  Keim,  quoted  on  p.  60. 

8  See  H.  B.  D.  Art. :   N.  T.  Chron.,  also   Ramsay,  Was  Christ  born  at 
Bethlehem?  Cap.  X. 
4  P.  30. 


THEORY  OF  LATE   COMPOSITE    ORIGIN  87 

According  to  Soltau,  there  was  a  process  of  growth,  by- 
accretion  and  redaction,  from  the  fundamental  misconcep- 
tion that  the  Messiah  must  be  born  in  Bethlehem  to  the 
elaborate  legend  as  it  now  stands  in  the  Gospels. 

The  first  form  of  it  was  a  story l  "  current  in  Palestinian 
circles,  which  represented  that  Jesus  actually  came  from 
Nazareth,  but  was  born  as  a  descendant  of  David  in  Beth- 
lehem, and  was  really  derived  in  the  male  line  from  David 
himself,  though  the  story  even  in  this  developed  form 
knew  nothing  as  yet  of  the  virgin  birth  of  Jesus.  It 
described  in  a  genuinely  Jewish2  way  the  joy  manifested 
by  the  oldest  generation  when  the  Messiah  appeared,  and 
was  only  legendary  in  so  far  as  it  acquiesced  in  the  dog- 
matic views  which  required  that  the  Messiah  should  be 
born  only  in  David's  native  place." 

"  The  next  step  in  this  building-up  process  was  a  further- 
developed  Jewish-Christian  version  of  the  story,  to  the 
effect  that  Jesus,  the  son  of  Joseph,  of  the  tribe  of  David, 
was  born  in  Bethlehem,  and  from  that  place  journeyed  to 
Nazareth,  a  story  recounted  in  a  different  form  and  with 
different  ideas  from  those  of  the  account  in  the  First  and 
Third  Evangelists."  To  this  developed  story  Luke  added 
as  details : — 

1.  Generation  of  Jesus  through  the  Holy  Spirit  (i,  25- 
56). 

2.  The  Angels'  Song  of  Praise  (ii,  8-20). 

Matthew  has  connected  the  virgin  birth  with  Jesus,  and 
the  visit  of  the  Magi. 

The  song  attributed  to  the  angels  was  taken  even  in 
verbal  details  from  certain  inscriptions  discovered  recently 

1  Pp.  28,  29. 

2  This  admission  as  to  the  early  composition  of  the  songs  is  really  fatal, 
for  the  songs  are  an  integral  part  of  the  story,  and  are  logically  and  vitally 
connected  with  the  miraculous  birth.     See  discussion  Chap.  VI. 


88  GOSPEL  NARRATIVES 

in  Asia  Minor,  in  which  was  expressed  the  common  joy- 
felt  over  the  birth  of  the  Emperor  Augustus. 

The  adoration  of  the  Magi  was  altogether  based  upon 
heathen  mythology.  The  story  of  the  Magi  is  made  up 
of  two  elements  taken  from  very  different  sources  :  The 
sign  of  the  star  from  the  celestial  phenomena,  connected 
in  popular  mythology  with  the  birth  of  great  men,  and  the 
journey  of  the  wise  men  from  the  east  from  a  story  of  the 
journey  of  the  Parthian  King  Tiridates  and  his  Magians 
from  the  East  in  the  time  of  Nero  (  a.  d.  66 ). 

Soltau  says,  that  "in  the  joyful  Christmas  message  (Luke 
ii,  14),  the  terms  in  which  in  those  days  it  was  usual  to 
pay  homage  to  the  earthly  prince  of  peace,  Augustus,  were 
applied  quite  spontaneously  to  the  heavenly  Prince  of 
Peace,  so  the  first  evangelists  felt  that  the  journey  of  the 
Magi  from  the  East,  which  threw  the  whole  cultured 
world  into  a  state  of  astonishment,  could  only  be  explained, 
if  their  act  of  adoration  might  be  transferred  from  the  anti- 
Christ  Nero  to  the  Messiah."  l 

The  virgin  birth,  which  is  not  accounted  for  in  the  natu- 
ral history  of  the  legend  thus  far,  is  to  be  viewed  under 
three  aspects : — 

1.  As  regards  form,  the  whole  narrative  is  simply  a 
deliberate  recast  of  the  older  Jewish  fables  about  Samson 
and  John. 

2.  As  regards  matter,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  to  be  ex- 
plained as  a  transformation  of  biblical  conceptions,  due  to 
misconception. 

3.  At  the  same  time,  those  elements  drawn  from  heathen 
mythology  can  be  detected  which  promoted  the  transfor- 
mation of  Christian  ideas,  and  the  development  of  a  wrong 
conception. 

The  matter  in  the  early  chapters  was  built  up  almost 
1  Pp.  39,  40. 


THEORY  OF  LATE    COMPOSITE    ORIGIN  89 

verse  by  verse  upon  the  original  foundation  of  the  story 
of  John  by  gradual  accretions  and  successive  redactions, 
until  we  come  to  the  finished  product  of  the  double  legend. 
The  finished  product  is  very  late,  for,  according  to  the 
theory,  the  legend  was  completed  after  the  views  of  Paul 
and  John  were  published  and  had  time  to  percolate  into 
the  popular  mind  and  start  up  a  reaction  in  the  shape  of 
legendary  stories. 

"  When  the  Pauline  and  Johannine  Christology,1  having 
been  translated  into  popular  language,  penetrated  to  the 
lower  classes  of  the  people,  it  was  almost  bound  to  lead 
to  the  view  becoming  current  amongst  Christians  untrained 
in  philosophy,  that  Christ,  in  calling  God  his  Father,  did 
not  merely  call  Him  so  in  the  sense  in  which  all  are  chil- 
dren of  God,  but  that  He  was  even  bodily  of  '  higher 
derivation,'  of  divine  origin.  Here,  then,  the  myth-making 
imagination  of  Christians,  roused  to  religious  enthusiasm, 
settled,  and  sought  to  remodel  in  a  form  intelligible  to  the 
senses  what  had  been  puzzled  out  by  the  brains  of  philos- 
ophers and  dogmatists ;  and  in  this  task,  widely  diffused 
heathen  fables  again  came  to  their  assistance." 

Now  that  this  theory  lies  fully  before  me,  I  confess  to 
no  little  hesitation  in  undertaking  to  criticise  it.  It  is  so 
complicated  and  so  ingenious,  and  yet  so  full  of  logical 
inconsistencies  and  unprovable  assumptions.  The  logical 
tangle  into  which  its  statements  lead  is  so  complete  that  I 
find  it  very  difficult  to  understand  how  its  author  himself 
could  have  overlooked  it. 

On  page  twenty-five,  he  says ;  "  Toward  the  end  of  the 
first  century,  Bethlehem  was  regarded  as  the  real  birth- 
place of  Jesus.  Upon  this  foundation  were  built  up  the 
two  narratives,  which  now  stand  at  the  beginning  of  the 
first  and  third  Gospels." 

2Pp- 44,45- 


90  GOSPEL   NARRATIVES 

On  page  forty-eight,  he  says  :  "  The  idea  that  the  Holy 
Spirit  begat  Jesus  can  have  no  other  than  a  Hellenic 
origin.  Note  here  that  the  idea  did  not  certainly  arise 
until  toward  the  end  of  the  first  century,  or  cannot  have 
come  to  be  commonly  held." 

We  have  here  a  curious  process.  There  came  into 
existence  near  the  end  of  the  first  century  a  conviction 
that  Jesus  must  be  born  at  Bethlehem.  From  this  begin- 
ning, by  an  elaborate  process  of  building  up,  detail  upon 
detail,  through  the  addition  to  the  primitive  tradition  of 
detached  fragments  from  all  imaginable  sources  culmin- 
ating finally  in  the  fiction  of  the  virgin  birth,  which  is  itself 
a  complicated,  manufactured  article,  the  completed  fable 
came  to  be,  and  yet  the  beginning  and  the  ending  of  this 
whole  process  is  dated  at  the  same  time.  The  conviction 
that  Jesus  must  be  born  at  Bethlehem  arose  about  the 
end  of  the  first  century,  the  Hellenic  conception  of  the 
miraculous  birth  arose  about  the  end  of  the  first  century, 
and  yet  between  the  two  lies  a  process  of  development, 
which  would  require  at  least  a  half  century  to  consum- 
mate. If  this  is  "  scientific  criticism,"  one  would  like  to 
see  what  sort  of  work  old-fashioned  dogmatism  would 
make  of  the  interpretation  of  the  documents. 

One  can  see  plainly  enough  where  the  difficulty  lies. 
The  process  of  building  up  an  elaborate  legend  from  such 
humble  beginnings  as  a  simple  belief  that  Jesus  was  born 
at  Nazareth  of  Joseph  and  Mary,  into  the  story  as  we  now 
have  it,  by  adding  details  borrowed  from  Old  Testament 
stories,  heathen  mythology,  and  Imperial  edicts,  requires 
time  and  a  great  deal  of  it.  The  process  must  be  supposed 
to  begin  late  because  time  must  be  allowed  for  the  sharp 
outlines  of  the  "genuine  tradition"  to  become  blurred — 
this  accounts  for  the  beginning  of  the  process  at  about 
the  end  of  the  first  century.     It  is  unsafe  to  carry  the  pro- 


THEORY  OF  LATE   COMPOSITE    ORIGIN  9 1 

cess  of  formation  too  far  into  the  second  century  for  we 
begin  to  have  some  definite  results  as  to  the  establish- 
ment of  the  canon  and  the  formation  of  church  creeds ; 
hence  the  completion  of  the  process  is  put  about  the  end 
of  the  first  century. 

But  it  is  clearly  impossible  that  such  a  process  as  the 
theory  describes  could  have  occupied  less  than  half  a 
century.  If  the  foundation  of  the  legend  was  laid,  as 
Soltau  affirms,  in  the  dogma  of  the  Bethlehem  birth  about 
the  end  of  the  first  century,  then  the  capstone  of  the  virgin 
birth  could  not  have  been  in  place  before  A.  d.  i  50.  We 
have  indubitable  evidence  that  the  virgin  birth  had  recog- 
nized credal  standing  in  all  the  principal  churches  long 
before  that  date. 

I  do  not  propose  to  deal  with  Soltau's  theory  of  piece- 
meal growth  in  detail ;  it  really  is  not  worth  while.  The 
theory  is  sufficiently  condemned  on  general  principles  of 
common  sense  and  logical  consistency. 

But  I  do  propose  to  take  up  a  few  specimens  of  the  criti- 
cal work,  which  has  gone  into  the  elaboration  of  the  theory. 

In  the  first  place,  it  is  noticeable  that  he  assumes  that 
any  similarity  between  heathen  stories  and  the  incidents 
connected  with  the  birth  of  Jesus  is  evidence  enough  that 
the  Christian  writer  borrowed  from  the  heathen  as  a  source, 
provided  there  is  a  bare  possibility  that  the  Christian 
writer  was  acquainted  with  the  authority  in  question.  For 
example,  the  words  attributed  by  Luke  to  the  angel  is 
said  to  be  taken  verbatim  from  congratulatory  inscriptions 
on  the  birth  of  Augustus. 

"  The  writer  transferred  them  to  the  times  when  his 
Saviour  was  born ;  for  no  one,  who  decides  the  question 
from  a  scientific  standpoint,  could  really  doubt  the  priority 
of  the  Asiatic  inscriptions  to  the  first  beginnings  of  a 
history  of  the  childhood  of  Jesus." 


92  GOSPEL   NARRATIVES 

Now  notice  the  assumptions  upon  which  this  conclusion 
rests : — 

1.  That  the  inscriptions  were  prior  to  the  composition 
of  the  angels'  song  in  Luke's  Gospel. 

2.  That  the  angels'  song  was  of  heathen  origin.  Soltau 
says  in  the  texts  that  the  "  ideas  in  the  angels'  song  may- 
be of  purely  heathen  origin, "  and  in  a  note,  "  This,  of 
course,  excludes  the  idea  that  the  form,  which  they  have 
taken  was  due  to  Jewish-Christians  ;  we  may  be  sure  that 
they  are  not  of  Palestinian  origin." 

3.  That  the  writer  was  familiar  with  the  inscriptions  and 
transferred  them  to  his  Saviour.  If  any  one  of  these  three 
assumptions  breaks  down,  the  theory  goes  with  it. 

Now  of  the  assumptions,  we  may  say  of  the  first  that  it 
is  probably  correct,  if  the  date  assigned  to  the  inscriptions 
is  accurate.  The  history  of  the  Augustan  period  is  notably 
obscure,  and  all  conclusions  concerning  dates  are  to  be 
held  with  caution. 

As  to  the  second  assumption,  we  may  safely  say  that  it 
is  contradicted  by  two  patent  facts.  First,  its  connection 
with  the  doctrine  of  angels,  which,  in  the  form  given 
it  in  the  Infancy  narrative,  is  a  distinctly  Jewish  con- 
ception. 1  Second,  the  song  of  the  angels  is  a  fragment 
of  a  poem  originally  written  in  Hebrew  with  the  distinctive 
Hebrew  parallelism  still  remaining.  Unfortunately,  the 
writer  has  chosen  one  of  the  most  ancient  and  character- 
istically Hebraic  portions  of  the  New  Testament  as  exhibit- 
ing late  heathen  influence. 2 

As  to  the  third  assumption,  we  have  no  evidence  to 
justify  a  conclusion  oneway  or  the  other.  The  confident 
assertion  that  the  song  of  the  angels  was  framed  from 
Imperial  inscriptions  is  shattered  upon  the  actual  facts. 

'See  Hastings  B.  D.,  article  Angels,  also  note  at  end  of  Chap.  vi. 
2  Briggs,  New  Light  on  L.  J.,  p.  163. 


THEORY  OF  LATE   COMPOSITE    ORIGIN  93 

It  is  hardly  necessary  to  add  that  the  inscriptions  them- 
selves coincide  with  Luke  only  in  the  use  of  words  com- 
monly used  in  classic  and  Hellenic  Greek.  The  similarity 
between  the  inscriptions  and  the  passage  in  Luke  is  not 
striking  enough  to  warrant  any  definite  conclusion  apart 
from  other  considerations.  * 

Another  specimen  of  Soltau's  critical  method  is  seen  in 
his  attempt  to  account  for  the  story  of  the  wise  men.  He 
fails  altogether  to  see,  or  at  least  to  mention,  the  inter- 
dependence of  this  story  with  the  incident  of  the  massacre 
of  the  Innocents  and  the  flight  into  Egypt.  In  Matthew's 
account,  the  visit  and  inquiry  of  the  wise  men  for  the  new- 
born King  called  Herod's  attention  to  His  birth ;  made  the 
flight  into  Egypt  necessary ;  and  occasioned  the  slaughter 
of  the  Innocents.  This  does  not  prevent  the  critic,  how- 
ever, from  ascribing  the  closely  knit  narrative  to  several 
independent  sources. 

The  massacre  of  the  Innocents  and  the  flight  into  Egypt 
was  due  to  the  influence  of  the  Old  Testament  precedents. 2 
The  star  of  the  wise  men  was  taken  from  the  common 
mythology,  in  which  celestial  phenomena  are  said  to  have 
accompanied  the  birth  of  great  men.  The  journey  of  the 
wise  men,  however,  was  due  to  a  story  recorded  by  Pliny 
and  repeated  with  variations  by  Dio  Cassius  of  a  visit  of 
King  Tiridates,  and  the  Magians  to  Nero.  The  writer  of 
the  account  in  Matthew  could  not  believe  that  this  visit 
of  respect  and  worship  could  have  been  made  to  such  a 
monster  as  Nero,  and  therefore  made  free  to  correct  his- 
tory by  attributing  the  visit  to  Jesus.  He  took  great 
pains,  however,  to  suppress  the  fact  that  there  was  a  king 
among  the  visitors,  although  the  Christian  imagination  has 
delighted  to  think  that  kings  came  to  worship  the  King 

1  See  Soltau's  proof  passages  in  appendix  to  his  book. 

2  Ex.  i,  15. 


94  GOSPEL  NARRATIVES 

of  kings.  He  lost  a  great  opportunity  in  suppressing  the 
fact  that  there  was  a  king  among  the  Magi.  Think, 
too,  of  the  cosmopolitan  comprehensiveness  of  a  mind  that 
could  take  an  incident  from  the  Old  Testament  and  remodel 
it,  a  feature  from  current  mythology,  and  a  fact  of  Roman 
imperial  history,  and  weave  them  together  so  that  the  star 
(taken  from  current  mythology)  led  the  wise  men  on  a 
journey  (taken  from  the  history  of  Nero's  reign)  to  seek 
the  king,  upon  whom  Herod  made  a  murderous  attempt 
(according  to  the  Old  Testament  mythology)  which  would 
have  succeeded  if  the  Child  had  not  fled  to  Egypt  (accord- 
ing to  Old  Testament  precedent),  and  the  wise  men  returned 
home  another  way  (according  to  Dio  Cassius). 

The  whole  contention  depends  for  its  plausibility  on  the 
assumption,  first,  that  the  account  in  Matthew  is  late, 
which  is  contradicted  by  the  Christology  of  the  entire 
section ;  second,  that  the  writer  was  familiar  with  the 
incidents  of  Roman  court  life,  for  which  there  is  not  the 
slightest  foundation ;  third,  that  the  writer  would  have 
accepted  with  equal  facility  ideas  from  the  Old  Testament, 
current  mythology,  and  Roman  history,  which  is  contra- 
dicted by  every  single  implication  of  the  passage.  In  the 
facts  of  the  case  the  explanation  has  not  a  leg  to  stand 
upon. 

Once  more,  I  wish  to  call  attention  to  the  curious 
natural  history,  which  the  critic  ascribes  to  the  idea  of  the 
virgin  birth : — 

In  form — a  deliberate  recast  of  older  Jewish  fables 
about  Samson,  and  John  the  Baptist. 

In  matter — a  transformation  of  biblical  conceptions,  such 
as  those  found  in  the  Christologies  of  Paul  and  John.  In 
final  outcome — modified  by  heathen  elements. 

This  elaborate  explanation  also  breaks  into  fragments 
upon  actual  facts : — 


THEORY  OF  LATE   COMPOSITE    ORIGIN  95 

1.  It  calls  for  a  late  origin,  i.  e.,  after  the  publication  and 
common  acceptance  of  the  writings  of  John  and  Paul, 
which  is  contradicted  by  the  nature  of  the  documents,  and 
by  the  known  facts  of  Christian  thought  of  the  early 
second  century. l 

2.  The  virgin  birth  in  its  statement  in  the  Infancy  nar- 
rative is  not  doctrinal  in  its  form.  It  is  stated  as  a  his- 
torical fact  without  elaboration  or  development. 

3.  The  documents,  in  which  the  statement  is  found,  and 
of  which  it  is  a  component  part,  are  essentially  Jewish. 

The  entire  theory  of  Soltau  breaks  down  upon  three 
unassailable  facts : — 

1.  The  narratives,  each  of  Matthew  and  Luke,  are 
units.  They  have  one  central  formative  principle,  close 
inter-relation  of  parts,  and  unbroken  flow  of  narrative. 

2.  The  narratives  are  ancient.  This  has  been  demon- 
strated at  length  in  these  pages,  and  is  an  assured  result 
of  criticism. 

3.  The  narratives  are  Jewish — the  convincing  evidence 
for  this  has  been  urged  at  length.234 

In  contrast  with  the  work  of  Soltau,  which  seems  to  me 
a  travesty  upon  criticism,  I  wish  to  place  before  the  reader 

1  One  might  easily  overlook  the  insuperable  difficulties  involved  in  this 
theory.  The  Infancy  narrative  according  to  Soltau  originated  among 
simple-minded  people,  familiar  with  the  teachings  of  Paul  and  John,  but 
incapable  of  understanding  them  in  the  sense  intended  by  their  authors. 
These  people  succeeded  in  concocting  a  crude  theory  of  their  own  to  explain 
the  greatness  of  Jesus,  and  in  thrusting  it  up  over  the  heads  of  their  leaders 
and  teachers  into  a  secure  place  among  the  documents  of  Christianity,  and 
the  creeds  of  the  church. 

2  See  Lobstein,  p.  129. 

'See  Fairbairn,  Phil.  Christian  Religion,  p.  518,  quoted  in  note 
at  end  of  volume.  Also  Ibid.,  p.  349,  on  character  of  the  narrative  of 
Infancy. 

*  For  a  statement  of  this  by  one  clearly  alive  to  all  the  difficulties  invol- 
ved in  the  narratives,  see  Mathews  :  Mess.  Hope  in  N.  T,  p.  233. 


96  GOSPEL  NARRATIVES 

a  specimen  of  sane  and  scholarly  criticism  working  upon 
the  documents  of  the  Infancy.  Dr.  C.  A.  Briggs,  of  New- 
York,  is  known  on  both  sides  of  the  Atlantic  as  a  critic 
who  is  thoroughly  committed  to  the  documentary  theory 
both  of  the  Old  Testament  and  the  New.  I  take  the 
liberty  of  quoting  a  chapter  from  his  recent  book  on  "New 
Light  on  the  Life  of  Christ." l  I  may  say  that  most  of  my 
book  was  written  before  I  had  the  privilege  of  seeing  the 
work  of  Dr.  Briggs. 

"  The  Gospels  of  Mark  and  John  agree  in  having  no 
gospel  of  the  infancy  of  Jesus.  This  was  due,  doubtless, 
to  a  lack  of  interest  in  that  part  of  the  life  of  Jesus,  as 
well  as  to  the  fact  that  both  of  these  Gospels  seem  to  be 
limited  to  the  testimony  of  what  the  primary  authorities 
themselves  had  seen  and  heard,  St.  Peter  in  Mark,  and  St. 
John  in  the  Gospel  of  John ;  that  is,  in  both  Gospels  in 
their  original  forms. 

"  The  later  editors,  doubtless  owing  to  a  more  dogmatic 
interest,  thinking  of  Jesus  as  the  Son  of  God  and  divine, 
had  still  less  interest  in  the  infancy  of  Jesus.  The  gospel 
of  the  Infancy  is  confined  to  a  brief  statement  in  Matthew 
i,  1 8  to  ch.  ii  to  which  a  genealogy  of  Jesus  is  prefixed ;  and 
a  fuller  statement,  Luke  i-ii,  to  which  a  genealogy  is 
appended,  iii,  23-38,  the  ministry  of  John  being  inserted, 
iii,  1-22. 

"  The  fact,  that  in  both  cases  the  gospel  of  the  Infancy  is 
attached  to  genealogies  shows  an  interest  in  proving  that 
Jesus  was  the  son  of  David,  the  heir  of  the  promises  to 
David  and  his  seed,  and  so  the  Messiah.  The  fact  that 
Luke's  genealogy  goes  back  to  Adam  shows  a  human 
interest,  and  a  universalism  characteristic  of  the  Roman 
disciple  of  St.  Paul.  The  stories  of  the  Infancy,  told  by 
Matthew,  were  all  to  show  that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah  of 

1  Published  by  Charles  Scribner's  Sons. 


THEORY  OF  LATE   COMPOSITE    ORIGIN  g? 

Prophecy:  (i)  The  annunciation  to  Joseph  and  birth  of 
Jesus,  as  the  fulfillment  of  the  prophecy  of  Isaiah  respect- 
ing Immanuel.  (2)  The  adoration  of  the  Magi,  as  the 
fulfillment  of  the  prophecy  of  Micah  that  the  Messiah 
would  be  born  in  Bethlehem.  (3)  The  blood-bath  of 
Bethlehem  and  the  flight  into  Egypt,  as  fulfilling  the  proph- 
ecy of  Jeremiah,  of  Rachel  weeping  for  her  children ;  and 
the  prediction  of  Hosea  that,  '  out  of  Egypt  did  I  call  my 
son.'  (4)  The  return  to  Nazareth,  as  fulfilling  the 
prophecy  of  Isaiah  that  He  should  be  called  a  Nazarene. 

"  It  is  evident  that  none  of  this  was  found  in  the  original 
Gospels  of  Matthew  or  Mark.  These  are  all  additions 
inserted  by  the  author  of  the  canonical  Matthew.  This 
conception  of  the  fulfillment  of  Old  Testament  prophecy 
by  these  events  as  stated  by  this  author,  is  doubtless  a 
crude  interpretation  of  the  Old  Testament  Scripture.  We 
may,  however,  find  a  sufficient  number  of  parallels  in  the 
Rabbinical  methods  of  the  time.  We  are  to  explain  them, 
therefore,  not  in  accordance  with  modern  principles  of  in- 
terpretation, but  in  accordance  with  those  principles  which 
were  in  use  in  the  times  of  Jesus. 

"  Did  these  stories  come  from  an  oral  source,  or  from  a 
written  source?  Matt,  i,  20,  21  gives  a  little  piece  of 
poetry.  This  is  not  complete  in  itself.  It  was  taken  from 
a  longer  poem.  Its  contents  show  that  the  longer  poem 
contained  a  fuller  account  of  the  story  of  the  Annunci- 
ation to  Joseph.  We  may  therefore  say  that  the  story  of 
the  Annunciation  to  Joseph,  and  the  birth  of  Jesus,  was 
taken  from  this  poem  and  given  by  the  author  of  our 
Matthew  in  prose  with  the  exception  of  this  extract. 
This  piece  has  the  parallelisms  and  measures  of  Hebrew 
poetry.  We  may,  therefore,  conclude  that  there  was  a 
poem  in  the  Hebrew  language,  which  has  been  translated 
for  the  present  Gospel.     The  other  stories  do  not  contain 


98  GOSPEL  NARRATIVES 

such  poetic  extracts,  and,  therefore,  we  cannot  use  the 
same  argument  for  a  written  source.  But  they  are 
Hebraistic  in  style.  It  is  possible  that  these  also  were 
in  the  same  poem ;  but  we  have  no  evidence  of  it,  in  their 
composition  or  their  context.  They  may,  therefore,  have 
come  from  an  oral  source.  The  use  that  is  made  of  them 
in  the  canonical  Matthew,  to  show  that  Jesus  was  the 
Messiah  of  Prophecy,  we  may  safely  say,  was  not  in  the 
source,  whether  oral  or  written,  but  was  due  to  the  author 
of  the  Gospel  himself. 

"The  fullest  report  of  the  story  of  the  Infancy  of  Jesus  is 
given  in  Luke.  The  story  is  composed  of  a  number  of 
pieces  of  poetry.  The  prose  narrative  gathers  about 
these ;  and  is  chiefly  of  the  nature  of  seams  to  build  the 
poetry  together  into  a  harmonious  story.  These  poems 
are :  (1)  The  Annunciation  to  Zacharias,  a  trimeter  poem  in 
the  original  Hebrew  in  two  strophes  of  different  lengths, 
evidently  incomplete  in  the  translation.  (2)  The  Annun- 
ciation to  Mary,  four  pieces  of  trimeter  poetry  of  different 
lengths  connected  by  seams,  evidently  incomplete  in  their 
present  form.  (3)  The  Annunciation  to  the  Shepherds, 
two  pieces  of  trimeter  poetry,  evidently  extracts  from  a 
larger  piece.  (4)  The  Song  of  Elisabeth,  and  (5)  the 
Song  of  the  Virgin,  the  Magnificat  of  the  Church,  both 
trimeter  poems,  more  complete  than  the  others,  but  prob- 
ably also  incomplete.  (6)  The  Song  of  Zacharias,  the 
Benedictus  of  the  Church.  This  seems  to  be  of  the  pen- 
tameter movement.  It  is  uncertain  whether  we  should 
divide  it  into  five  or  into  two  strophes.  It  is  the  most 
complete  of  the  poems,  but  it  is  by  no  means  certain  that 
the  whole  of  it  has  been  preserved.  (7)  The  song  of 
Simeon  is  a  trimeter  poem,  which  is  certainly  incomplete 
in  the  parts  of  two  strophes  that  have  been  preserved. 
This  is  the  Nunc  Dimittis  of  the  church. 


THEORY  OF  LATE   COMPOSITE    ORIGIN  99 

"These  seven  pieces  of  poetry  are  a  scries  of  annuncia- 
tions and  of  songs  of  gratitude  and  praise,  all  with  marked 
characteristics  of  Hebrew  poetry,  not  only  in  form,  but  in 
the  style  and  substance  of  the  thought.  They  are  not 
complete  in  themselves,  but  extracts  from  poems.  This 
raises  the  question  whether  they  were  not  originally  parts 
of  larger  poems,  rather  than  each  from  different  and  inde- 
pendent poems.  Six  of  them  have  the  same  trimeter 
movement,  and  may  all  be  from  the  same  poem.  One  of 
them  is  a  pentameter,  like  the  pentameter  preserved  in 
Matthew,  and  therefore  both  of  these  may  be  from  the  same 
poem.  May  we,  therefore,  think  of  two  long  poems,  each 
giving  a  poetic  account  of  the  birth  and  infancy  of  Jesus  ? 
Or  are  we  to  think  of  a  number  of  little  poems  each  tak- 
ing up  a  different  theme  ?  It  seems  more  probable  that 
we  have  to  think  of  two  original  poems  of  this  kind,  the 
one  chiefly  used  by  Matthew,  the  other  chiefly  used  by 
Luke.  At  all  events,  so  far  as  Luke  is  concerned,  his 
story  of  the  Infancy  is  nothing  more  than  a  prose  setting 
for  these  seven  poetic  pieces  given  by  him.  These  poems 
were  certainly  originally  in  Hebrew ;  they  were  also  cer- 
tainly before  him  in  written  documents,  one  or  more. 
They  were  written  sources  as  truly  as  the  original  Mark, 
and  the  original  Matthew, — all  alike  in  the  Hebrew  lan- 
guage. They  must  have  been  composed  before  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem,  either  in  the  Christian  congrega- 
tion of  Jerusalem,  or  the  Christian  community  in  Galilee ; 
therefore  by  early  Christian  poets  who  had  access  to  the 
family  of  Jesus,  certainly  to  His  brother  James  the  head 
of  the  Jerusalem  Church,  and  possibly  also  to  the  Virgin 
Mother  of  our  Lord ;  and  to  others  who  could  speak  as 
eyewitnesses  or  earwitnesses  of  these  matters  embodied 
in  verse.  Making  every  allowance  for  the  poetic  form, 
style,  and  conception,  these  poems  are  sources  of  the  high- 


100  GOSPEL   NARRATIVES 

est  value,  and  of  the  first  degree  of  historic  importance,  as 
belonging  with  the  original  Hebrew  Gospels  of  Mark, 
Matthew,  and  John,  rather  than  with  the  later  Gospels  of 
Matthew,  Luke,  and  John,  as  we  now  have  them. 

"  They  give  us  information  as  to  the  Infancy  of  Jesus,  and 
as  to  the  Virgin  Mother,  which  is  necessary  to  complete 
the  story  of  their  lives,  and  to  give  us  a  complete  under- 
standing of  their  character.  Indeed  this  gospel  of  the 
Infancy  as  enshrined  not  only  in  the  first  and  third  Gos- 
pels, but  also  in  the  Canticles  of  the  Church  derived  from 
them,  has  had  more  influence  upon  Christian  worship,  and 
no  less  influence  upon  Christian  doctrine,  than  the  more 
dogmatic  statements  of  the  Epistles.  There  is  no  sound 
reason  to  reject  it  as  merely  legendary  in  its  material. 
There  is  every  reason  to  accept  it  as  giving  a  valid  and 
essentially  historic  account  of  the  Infancy  of  our  Lord,  so 
far  as  it  could  be  reasonably  expected  in  poetic  forms." 


NOTE   TO    CHAPTER    IV 

There  are  two  statements  in  this  chapter  to  which  especial  interest  is 
attached. 

The  first  is  the  assertion  (quoted  on  p.  97)  that  "  none  of  this"  (that  is  the 
prophetic  passages  quoted  by  Matthew  in  connection  with  the  incidents  of 
Christ's  birth  and  infancy)  "  was  found  in  the  original  Gospels  of  Matthew 
or  Mark.  These  are  all  additions  inserted  by  the  author  of  the  canonical 
Matthew."  The  bearing  of  this  statement  upon  the  question  of  the  influence 
of  the  prophecies  upon  the  story  is  evident.  According  to  Dr.  Briggs  (see  p. 
99)  the  facts  told  concerning  the  Infancy  were  taken  from  written  sources 
belonging  to  the  primitive  groundwork  of  the  Gospels,  while  the  connection 
with  prophecy  was  made  by  the  literary  author  or  editor  of  the  completed 
Gospel.  The  reader  may  compare  this  statement  with  the  remark  made  on 
p.  34  of  the  present  work.  "  He  (the  author  of  the  Gospel)  did  not  come  to 
Jesus  through  the  prophecies  ;  he  came  to  the  prophecies  through  Jesus." 

Along  with  this  is  to  be  placed  the  further  striking  statement  which,  in 
view  of  the  facts  adduced,  it  would  be  very  difficult  to  dispute.  "  So  far  as 


THEORY  OF  LATE   COMPOSITE    ORIGIN  10 1 

Luke  is  concerned,  his  story  of  the  Infancy  is  nothing  more  than  a  prose 
setting  for  these  seven  poetic  pieces  given  by  him. 

"  Making  every  allowance  for  the  poetic  form,  style,  and  conception,  these 
poems  are  sources  of  the  highest  value,  and  of  the  first  historic  importance, 
as  belonging  with  the  original  Gospels  of  Mark,  Matthew,  and  John,  rather 
than  with  the  later  Gospels  of  Matthew,  Luke,  and  John  as  we  now  have 
them." 

When  it  is  remembered  that  the  historic  incidents  which  enter  into  Luke's 
prose  setting  for  the  poems  are  essentially  involved  in  the  poems  themselves, 
the  sound  historic  basis  of  the  Lukan  account  becomes  manifest.  The  con- 
tention elsewhere  maintained  in  these  pages  that  the  Infancy  documents 
form  a  part  of  the  primitive  basis  of  the  gospels,  and  are  among  the  earliest 
of  the  component  parts  of  the  New  Testament  finds  abundant  support  in  this 
chapter  from  Dr.  Briggs'  work. 


CHAPTER  V 

THE   THEORY  OF   EARLY    MYTHO-THEOLOGICAL  ORIGIN — 
LOBSTEIN 

In  the  preceding  chapters,  a  detailed  examination  was 
made  of  the  theories  of  Keim  and  Soltau  to  account  for 
the  origin  of  the  Infancy  stories  with  the  result  that  they 
were  found  to  lead  us  into  a  tangle  of  difficulties  and  con- 
tradictions from  which  there  seems  to  be  no  escape  except 
by  rejecting  the  theories  altogether. 

In  the  present  chapter,  I  propose  taking  up  the  theory 
set  forth  by  Professor  Lobstein,  of  the  University  of  Strass- 
burg,  in  a  monograph  entitled,  "The  Virgin  Birth  of 
Christ." x 

This  theory  is  far  more  ably  constructed  than  Keim's, 
is  advocated  more  persuasively  and,  it  must  be  acknowl- 
edged, has  more  warrant  in  the  facts. 

Lobstein  admits  that  the  theory  of  late  origin  for  the 
documents  is  untenable — at  least  his  theory  pushes  them 
well  back  into  the  apostolic  age,  while,  at  the  same  time, 
it  cuts  them  away  from  the  main  body  of  the  evangelic 
tradition. 

In  what  follows,  I  shall  consider  this  positive  and  con- 
structive theory  only.  His  objections  to  the  narratives,  in 
so  far  as  they  are  new,  have  been  incorporated  into  the 
first  chapter. 

Lobstein  advocates  his  theory  with  great  confidence. 
It  is  my  purpose  to  discover  whether  that  confidence  is 
well  founded. 

1  Crown  Library. 
102 


THEORY  OF  EARLY  MYTHO- THEOLOGICAL  ORIGIN   103 

Lobstein  states  his  theory  in  outline  in  the  following 
words : — 

1  "The  miraculous  birth  of  Jesus  vanishes  away,  or  rather 
is  resolved  into  a  myth  created  by  popular  devotion  and 
destined  to  explain  the  divine  Sonship  of  Christ  by  His 
supernatural  generation.  Thus  received,  the  conception 
of  our  two  evangelists  is  an  important  landmark  in  the 
development  of  Scriptural  Christology ;  if  it  ceases  to 
remain  a  real  fact  in  the  history  of  Jesus,  it  stands  out  as 
the  characteristic  creation  of  the  faith  of  the  church." 
And  the  process  was  this  :  "  Between  the  primitive  outlook 
of  popular  Messianic  belief,  and  the  point  reached  by  spec- 
ulative thought  in  the  prologue  to  the  Fourth  Gospel,  we 
may  place  the  tradition  which  has  been  preserved  in  the 
double  narrative  of  the  Protevangel  .  .  .  the  explanation 
disclosed  in  the  Gospels  of  the  nativity  is  the  physical 
explanation  of  the  divine  Sonship  of  Jesus." 

Lobstein  relies  for  proof  of  this  claim  principally  upon 
the  statement  attributed  to  the  angel  in  Luke  i,  35,  "The 
Holy  Spirit  shall  come  upon  thee,  and  the  power  of  the 
Most  High  shall  overshadow  thee :  wherefore  also  the 
holy  thing  .   .   .  shall  be  called  the  Son  of  God.2 

"  The  expression '  Son  of  God  '  must  be  taken  in  its  most 
literal  sense ;  the  Holy  Ghost  is  the  author  of  the  corpo- 
real and  material  life  of  Jesus,  the  maker  of  His  whole 
personality :  the  divine  Sonship  of  Christ  implies  a  com- 
munication of  the  substance  of  God;  it  is  a  physical 
filiation."  3 

And  this  is  the  way  in  which  they  arrived  at  the  notion 
of  the  virgin  birth.  It  was  a  general  tendency  of  the 
Israelitish  mind  to  ignore  second  causes,  and  to  emphasize 
the  agency  of  God.  Wonders  were  multiplied  round  the 
cradles  of  national    heroes,  and  a   special   divine  action 

1  Page  1 10.  '  Page  66.  s  Page  67. 


104  GOSPEL   NARRATIVES 

affirmed  in  connection  with  their  birth.  Isaac  and  others 
of  the  fathers  and  heroes  of  the  race  were  children  of 
"promise."  The  agency  of  the  human  father  was  not 
excluded,  but  was  passed  over  in  order  to  emphasize  the 
immediate  efficiency  of  God.  The  next  step  was  easy 
enough. 

"  It  was  natural  that  the  Christian  consciousness,  abso- 
lutely convinced  of  the  divine  nature  of  the  work  and 
inspiration  of  Christ,  should  have  attempted  to  explain  the 
birth  and  nature  of  the  Messiah  by  a  greater  miracle  than 
any  which  had  presided  over  the  origin  of  the  most 
famous  prophets. 1 

"  Being  greater  than  those  who  received  the  Holy  Spirit 
from  their  earliest  infancy,  He  was  conceived  by  the  Holy 
Spirit ;  His  life  proceeds  directly  from  the  life  of  God  Him- 
self; His  entire  personality  is  an  immediate  creation  of  the 
divine  activity — the  primitive  and  essential  relationship 
which  unites  Jesus  to  God  is  not  only  a  bond  of  spiritual 
sonship,  it  embraces  the  life  of  the  body  no  less  than  that 
of  the  soul;  the  divine  Sonship  of  Jesus  is  a  physical 
filiation." 

This  whole  process  was  aided  by  the  famous  verse  from 
Isaiah  (vii,  14)  for  the  use  of  which  the  LXX  had  prepared 
the  way  by  admitting  the  inadmissible  translation,  virgin, 
for  the  original  Hebrew. 

I  have  stated  Lobstein's  theory  in  his  own  words  and 
sufficiently  at  length  to  bring  clearly  before  the  reader  the 
striking  fact  that  in  the  very  statement  of  his  theory,  he 
is  forced  into  self-contradiction. 

In  one  place,  he  says  that  "  like  the  speculative  thesis 
of  the  preexistence  of  Christ,  the  Gospel  narrative  of  the 
supernatural  birth  of  Jesus  is  an  explanatory  formula,  an 
attempt  to  solve  the  Christological  problem. " 2 
1  Page  71.  2  Page  72. 


THEOR  Y  OF  EARL  Y  MYTHO- THEOLOGICAL  ORIGIN  105 

In  another  place  he  says,  "  The  conception  of  the  mirac- 
ulous birth  of  Christ  is  the  fruit  of  religious  feeling,  the 
echo  of  Christian  experience,  the  poetic  and  popular 
expression  of  an  affirmation  of  faith.  "  l 

Now  it  is  perfectly  certain  that  while  the  narrative  of 
the  Infancy  may  be  either  one  of  these  two  things,  it  can- 
not be  both  at  the  same  time. 

An  "  explanatory  formula  "  which  is  an  attempt  to  solve 
the  Christological  problem  cannot  be  the  "  fruit  of  religious 
feeling,"  nor  the  "  echo  of  Christian  experience.  " 

I  am  not  juggling  with  words.  Lobstein's  theory  con- 
tains a  fundamental  and  irreducible  contradiction — the  iron 
is  mingled  with  clay. 

When  Christ  has  become  a  problem  for  the  intellect  to 
be  solved  by  explanatory  formulae,  he  has  passed  entirely 
out  of  the  region  of  mere  religious  feeling,  and  altogether 
out  of  the  reach  of  popular  imagination.  Lobstein  has 
evidently  felt  this  difficulty,  for  he  attempts  to  scale  down 
the  contradiction  by  saying,  "  If  the  theory  of  the  pre- 
existence  is  the  theological  corollary  of  a  religious  axiom, 
the  study  of  the  miraculous  birth  is  not  so  much  the  result 
of  dogmatic  thought,  as  the  fruit  of  popular  imagination.  " 
The  difficulty  is  not  removed  by  this  fine-spun  distinction. 
Dogmatic  thought,  and  popular  imagination  do  not  mingle 
well.  The  hybrid  is  sterile.  The  amount  of  dogmatic 
thought,  which  can  be  combined  with  popular  imagination 
and  not  destroy  the  distinctive  qualities  of  both,  is  very 
small.  Dogmatic  thought  is  severe  ;  popular  imagination, 
spontaneous  and  intuitive.  The  dogmatic  thinker  ought 
to  have  imagination,  but  it  is  distinctly  not  of  the  popular 
sort.  The  contradiction  is  inescapable  for  it  inheres  in  the 
hypothesis. 

The  documents,  especially  Luke's  account,  are  for  the 

1  Page  96. 


106  GOSPEL   NARRATIVES 

most  part  touched  with  poetic  grace,  set  off  by  a  spon- 
taneous, unforced  tuneful,  lyric  quality. 

In  the  midst  of  a  nexus  of  incidents  very  simply  told, 
the  statement  of  the  virgin  birth  of  the  Saviour  is  placed. 

This  might  be  described  as  the  fruit  of  religious  feeling, 
but  Lobstein's  attempt  to  make  it  also  an  "  explanatory  for- 
mula "  turns  upon  a  single  verse,  into  which  he  imports 
an  abstract  and  severe  philosophical  meaning.  This  is  his 
explanation  of  the  verse  :  "  The  expression  '  Son  of  God ' 
must  be  taken  in  its  most  literal  sense,  the  Holy  Ghost  is 
the  author  of  the  corporeal  and  material  life  of  Jesus,  the 
maker  of  His  whole  personality ;  the  divine  Sonship  of 
Christ  implies  a  communication  of  the  substance  of  God, 
it  is  a  physical  filiation.  " 

Now  I  maintain  that  this  interpretation  is  simply  impos- 
sible in  the  light  of  the  context. x  It  reads  into  the  verse 
the  interpreter's  own  ideas.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  verse 
by  itself  does  not  necessarily  imply  a  virgin  birth  at  all. 
It  reads  thus :  "  The  Holy  Spirit  shall  come  upon  thee, 
and  the  power  of  the  Most  High  shall  overshadow  thee : 
wherefore  also  the  holy  thing  which  is  begotten  shall  be 
called  the  Son  of  God.  " 

Lobstein  claims  that  the  logical  connection  of  the  verse 
would  be  broken  if  the  divine  Sonship  of  Jesus  did  not  rest 
according  to  the  angel's  declaration,  upon  the  miraculous 
conception  of  the  holy  child  in  the  virgin's  womb. 

In  answer  to  Mary's  question  as  to  how  she  could 
become  a  mother,  still  being  a  maiden,  it  implies  that  her 
child  was  to  be  born  by  the  power  of  God,  and  that  alone. 
But  this  severe  construction,  if  rigidly  applied  in  connection 
with  the  next  verse,  would  carry  it  altogether  too  far,  for 
the  angel  continues,  "And  behold,  Elisabeth  thy  kins- 

1  On  the  meaning  of  the  phrase  "  Son  of  God,"  see  Briggs'  Messiah  of  the 
Gospels,  p.  46.     Cf.  Luke  i,  35  with  Psa.  ii,  7 ;  and  pp.  26,  27,  and  89. 


THEORY  OF  EARLY  MYTHO-THEOLOGICAL  ORIGIN  I07 

woman,  she  also  hath  conceived  a  son  in  her  old  age,"  etc., 
implying  that  Elisabeth's  child  also  was  miraculous  and, 
so  far  as  the  account  goes,  in  the  same  way,  and  to  the 
same  extent. 

It  requires  no  more  violence  with  the  texts  to  imply 
that  the  event  predicted  by  the  angel  was  to  take  place  in 
the  regular  way  after  Mary's  marriage  than  to  infer  that 
John,  though  a  child  of  promise,  was  thus  to  be  born. 

Now  the  context  excludes  both  Lobstein's  interpreta- 
tion and  this  one,  to  which  logic  points  with  equal  force. 

In  the  verse  rationally  interpreted,  there  is  no  definite 
dogmatic  content  revealed,  whatever  may  have  been  in  the 
mind  of  the  angel. 

The  verse  simply  implies  that  Mary's  Child  is,  from  the 
moment  of  His  conception,  to  occupy  a  unique  relation- 
ship to  God. 

The  exact  manner  of  His  entrance  into  the  world,  and 
and  difference  between  Him  and  Elisabeth's  child  is  left 
to  be  revealed  by  after  events.  The  angel's  promise  would 
have  been  fulfilled  so  far  as  the  necessary  implication  of  the 
words  is  concerned,  even  if  Lobstein's  theory  were  correct. 

It  is  clear,  then,  by  analysis,  that  Lobstein's  theory  is 
really  the  amalgamation  of  two  theories :  One,  that  the 
narrative  was  the  result  of  dogmatic  thought ;  ^he  other, 
that  it  was  the  fruit  of^rjopular  imagination.  We  may/ 
then  proceed  to  consider  these  two  suppositions  separately. 

First,  then,  the  theory  that  the  Infancy  narrative  is  an 
attempt  in  the  form  of  a  narrative  to  solve  the  problem 
presented  by  Jesus  to  His  followers. 

The  most  obvious  remark  to  be  made  in  regard  to 
this  contention,  that  the  Infancy  story  was  a  phase  of 
Christian  thought,  is  that  early  Christian  thinking  did  not 
pass  through  the  course  of  development  demanded  by  the 
theory  as  Lobstein  interprets  it. 


108  GOSPEL   NARRATIVES 

He  places  this  concrete  representation  of  Christ's  divine 
mission  and  life  midway  (logically)  between  the  primitive 
Messianic  interpretation  of  the  early  disciples,  and  the  fully 
developed  and  elaborate  Christology  of  John  and  Paul. 
Notice  the  antecedent  condition,  out  of  which  this  so- 
called  phase  of  Scriptural  Christology  issued. 

"The  Christian  consciousness,1  absolutely  convinced 
of  the  divine  nature  of  the  work  and  inspiration  of  Christ," 
attempted  to  explain  the  birth  and  origin  by  a  greater 
miracle  than  any  which  had  presided  over  the  origin  of 
patriarchs  and  prophets.  Here  then  is  the  process  :  The 
root  of  it  all,  an  absolute  conviction  of  the  divinity  of 
the  work  and  inspiration  of  Christ ;  and  growing  out  of 
it  as  branches,  The  Primitive  Messianic  Interpretation, 
The  Concrete  Historical  Interpretation,  The  Johannine 
Logos  Interpretation,  the  Pauline  Ascended  Lord  Inter- 
pretation. 

But  the  absolute  unshaken  conviction  of  the  Christian 
consciousness,  out  of  which  this  whole  development  is  said 
to  have  arisen,  is  itself  not  a  point  of  departure,  but  a  point 
of  arrival ;  and  long  and  weary  was  the  way  thither.  This 
whole  contention  of  Lobstein's  is  absolutely  demolished  by 
known  facts  of  early  Christian  thought. 

The  course  of  that  development,  as  exhibited  in  our 
documents,  is  as  follows  :  First,  a  primitive  impression  of 
Jesus'  greatness  in  word  and  work,  which  led  to  the 
thought  that  He  must  be  the  Messiah. 2  There  seems  to 
be  conclusive  evidence  that  during  this  period  the  disciples, 
on  one  or  two  occasions,  in  moments  of  rare  insight,  spoke 
of  Jesus  as  the  Son  of  God ;  though  this  need  not  be 
insisted  upon.  Second,  a  period  of  painful  suspension  of 
judgment,  during  which  the  disciples  were  utterly  unable 
to  reconcile  their  belief  in  Jesus'  Messiahship  and  Divinity 

1  Page  71.  2  Mark  viii,  29. 


THEOR  Y  OF  EARL  Y  MYTHO-  THEOL  OGICAL  ORIGIN  1 09 

with  His  impending  death  at  the  hands  of  enemies. 1 2 
Third,  a  sudden  and  great  illumination  and  enlargement 
of  vision  due  to  the  Resurrection,  and  the  light  shed  by  it 
upon  the  meaning  of  Christ's  death. 3  Fourth,  a  great 
burst  of  missionary  zeal,  consequent  upon  the  experience 
of  Pentecost,  and  connected  with  the  Resurrection,  during 
which  the  Resurrection,  reinforced  and  illustrated  by  lead- 
ing events  of  Christ's  life  and  words  connected  therewith, 
was  the  burden  of  the  preaching  and  teaching  of  the  apos- 
tles and  disciples.4  This  period  lasted  until,  fifth,  the 
church  expanded  beyond  the  ability  of  the  original  mes- 
sengers of  the  word  to  care  for  it  personally  in  all  its  parts, 
when  the  writing  of  the  Gospels  for  the  use  of  churches 
for  public  reading  and  catechetical  instruction  in  the 
absence  of  the  apostles  began. 5 

Now  in  the  arrangement  of  minor  details,  this  outline 
may  be  modified,  but  the  general  sequence  is  thoroughly 
well  established.  In  view  of  this  succession  of  events, 
what  room  is  left  for  a  dogmatic  process,  like  the  creation 
of  the  Infancy  narratives,  in  explanation  of  an  assured  con- 
sciousness of  Christ's  divinity  midway  between  the  primi- 
tive Messianic  belief,  and  the  developed  Christology  of 
Paul  and  John  ? 

It  is  excluded,  for,  during  that  whole  time,  the  disciples 
were  struggling  to  adjust  the  death  of  which  Christ  so 
constantly  spoke,  to  their  belief  in  His  divine  mission.6 

1  Mark  viii,  31  seq. 

2  For  early  beginning  of  Christ's  foreboding  concerning  His  death,  and  for 
statement  as  to  His  teaching  on  the  subject  see  Denney,  Death  of  Christ, 
p.  22. 

3  Acts  i,  15.  *Actsii.  5  Luke  i,  1-4. 

6  Two  things  are  to  be  noted  here  :  (a)  The  relative  lateness  of  the  time 
when  Jesus  drew  forth  the  confession  of  His  Messiahship;  i.e.,  at  Caesarea- 
Philippi  in  the  later  Galilsean  ministry,  just  before  the  Transfiguration. 

b.  Immediately  upon  this  confession  followed  new  teaching  on  the  coming 
death  which  threw  the  disciples  into  perplexity  and  distress. 


IIO  GOSPEL   NARRATIVES 

Until  after  the  Resurrection,  they  never  reached  the  posi- 
tion of  absolute  conviction,  out  of  which  the  narrative  of 
the  Infancy  is  alleged  to  have  issued. 

Lobstein  attempts  to  escape  from  the  chronological 
puzzle  into  which  his  theory  leads,  by  disavowing  any 
chronological  implications  which  may  arise,  but  the  at- 
tempt is  not  successful. 

The  very  statement  of  the  theory  involves  chronological 
data.  This  interpretation  certainly  was  not  developed 
after  the  death  of  Christ  was  taken  up  into  Christian  theol- 
ogy, and  the  Christologies  of  John  and  Paul  were 
unfolded. 

The  preliminary  section  is  certainly,  as  we  have 
seen,  an  early  part  of  the  Gospel  record.  It  never 
passes  beyond  the  circle  of  Old  Testament  ideas  and 
expectations.  And  yet  we  are  asked  to  believe,  that  it 
is  a  myth  due  to  the  attempt  to  embody  forth  an  inward 
conception  of  the  unique  exaltation  of  Christ  among 
men,  which  demanded  some  explanation.  It  must  have 
been  composed  at  a  time  when  certain  followers  of  Jesus 
had  a  very  clear  notion  of  His  unique  position  among 
men,  for  that  is  the  foundation  of  the  myth,  and  yet  did 
not  have  under  consideration  His  death  and  resurrection, 
for  of  the  doctrinal  implication  of  these  no  hint  appears 
in  the  story. 

It  is  undoubtedly  true  that  Christ's  followers  were  im- 
pressed from  the  beginning  with  the  fact  that  He  was 
different  from  other  men — indeed,  we  have  good  reason  to 
suppose  that  they  believed  after  a  fashion  that  He  was  the 
promised  Messiah.  But  this  belief  was  confused,  incon- 
sistent, and  hard  pressed  to  maintain  itself  until  after  the 
Resurrection.  We  know  that  the  expansion  of  Christian 
belief  came  very  early,  and  that  it  was  due  to  the  taking 
up  into  Christian  consciousness  of  a   fact  which,   until 


THE  OR  Y  OF  EARL  Y  M  YTIIO-  THEOLOGICAL  ORIGIN   1 1 1 

the  Resurrection,  remained  stubbornly  outside;  viz.,  Christ's 
atoning  death. ' 

It  is  difficult  to  see  how  an  idea  of  Jesus'  exaltation 
could  have  grown  to  any  great  proportions  without  an 
explanation  of  the  significance  of  His  death.  It  is  equally 
difficult  to  see  how  His  death  could  have  been  explained 
without  some  understanding  of  its  atoning  value.  It  is 
even  more  difficult  to  see  how  anyone  who  had  attained 
an  understanding  of  the  atoning  value  of  Jesus'  death 
could  have  kept  an  idea  of  such  commanding  importance 
out  of  his  writing. 

There  is,  therefore,  an  accumulation  of  difficulties  in- 
volved in  the  supposition  that  those  who  Wiere  responsible 
for  the  composition  of  the  Gospel  of  the  Infancy  could 
have  possessed  such  an  idea  of  the  unique  exaltation  of 
Jesus  as  would  impel  them  to  the  formation  of  a  myth  to 
explain  it.     A  myth  does  not  grow  in  an  hour. 

Are  we  to  suppose  that,  between  the  period  of  confusion 
in  the  disciple's  mind,  which  lasted  until  the  death  of  Jesus, 
and  that  clear  unfolding  of  doctrine  consequent  upon  the 
outpouring  at  Pentecost,  a  sufficient  time  elapsed  for  the 
formation  of  a  myth  so  elaborate  as  the  double  Infancy 
Narrative  ? 

The  supposition  is  inadmissible.  The  Christian  con- 
sciousness could  not  take  a  single  step  beyond  that  primi- 
tive attitude  of  wondering  and  hesitating  faith  in  Jesus' 
Messiahship  without  coming  into  contact  with  the  unman- 
ageable fact  that  He  was  to  suffer.  There  was  nothing  to 
do  but  to  struggle  with  that  first  until  it  could  be  brought 
into  the  structure  of  faith. 

Even  though,  conceivably,  we  might  break  through  the 
foregoing  difficulties,  the  troubles  into  which  the  theory 

1  For  good  study  of  course  of  events  see  Rhees  :  Life  of  Jesus,  Section 
165,  p.  150. 


112  GOSPEL   NARRATIVES 

leads  us  are  not  yet  ended.  Indeed,  they  have  but  just 
begun. 

The  reasonings  and  conclusions  of  Lobstein  have  very 
little  cogency  for  me,  because  of  one  significant  omission 
throughout  his  entire  argument. 

From  the  beginning  to  the  end  of  his  treatise,  I  find  no 
indication  that  it  ever  occurred  to  him  that  Hebrew  Chris- 
tians could  feel  any  mental  recoil  from  the  idea  of  a  virgin 
birth. 

He  expressly  excludes  the  supposition  of  any  domina- 
ting heathen  influence.  He  says  clearly  : 1  "  The  aversion 
which  primitive  Christianity  felt  for  polytheistic  paganism 
was  so  deep-seated  that  before  supposing  the  new  religion 
to  have  been  influenced  by  pagan  mythologies,  we  must 
examine  with  the  utmost  possible  care  the  points  of  resem- 
blance which  are  sometimes  found  to  exist  between  beliefs 
and  institutions."23 

The  belief  in  incarnations  and  in  births  by  the  power  of 
deities  was  confined  to  the  heathen,  and  the  conceptions 
of  the  Deity  which  made  such  notions  possible  were 
utterly  foreign  both  to  the  Old  Testament  and  to  the  Jew- 
ish adherents  of  the  Gospel.  It  is  clear  from  internal  evi- 
dence that  the  Gospel  of  the  Infancy  proceeded  from 
Jewish  Christians  of  the  Old  Testament  type — separate 
entirely  from  heathen  influences.  That  they  should  have 
originated  the  idea  of  the  virgin  birth  out  of  Old  Testa- 
ment ideas  in  which  they  habitually  moved  is  very  hard 
to  believe.4 

The  difficulty  is  greatly  increased  by  another  consider- 

1  See  also  Gore,  Dissert.,  pp.  55,  seq. 

5  Page  76. 

3  Cf.  Gore  :  Incarnation  of  Son  of  God — p.  271,  note  24 — and  reference  to 
Kellogg  :  Light  of  Asia  and  Light  cf  the  World.  Cf.  Meyer,  Matt.  Com. 
vol.  i,  p.  67,  note. 

*Neander:  Life  of  Christ,  pp.  13  seq.  especially  10. 


THE  OR  Y  OF  EARL  Y  M  YTHO-  THE  OL  O  GICAL  ORIGIN  1 1 3 

ation  still  more  definite  and  practical.  In  Lobstein's  exposi- 
tion, the  process  of  development  was  very  simple  and  easy. 
From  the  strong  conviction  of  Jesus'  superiority,  even  to 
patriarchs,  and  lawgivers,  and  prophets,  through  the  birth 
marvels  attendant  upon  their  entrance  into  the  world,  with 
the  assistance  of  the  incorrect  translation  from  Isaiah  to 
the  idea  that  Jesus  was  Himself  the  very  Son  of  God  by  a 
supernatural  generation,  the  entire  process  was  as  easy 
and  natural  as  the  growth  of  a  plant  from  stem  to  flower 
and  fruit.  But  this  is  a  mere  scholastic  theory,  utterly 
unlike  what  did  or  could  actually  take  place.  It  is  per- 
fectly safe  to  assert  that  had  we  no  positive  evidence  in 
rebuttal  of  this  theory,  as  to  the  course  of  development  in 
the  thought  of  the  early  church,  we  would  still  be  in  a 
position  to  deny  on  other  grounds  the  possibility  of  the 
theory.  It  fails  to  take  into  account  the  nature  of  the 
people  who  were  dealing  with  the  materials  of  the  Gospel 
story,  and  the  nature  of  the  circumstances  under  which 
they  were  placed. 

The  most  marked  characteristic  of  Christ's  disciples  and 
of  the  people,  by  whom  He  was  usually  surrounded,  was 
their  almost  unmovable  intellectual  conservatism. 

They  were  fixed  in  the  traditions  of  the  scribes  and  the 
elders.  Any  novelty  of  teaching  or  practice,  any  depar- 
ture from  the  beaten  track  of  traditional  interpretation  or 
action,  was  sure  to  awaken  feelings  of  fear  and  disgust. 
Christ's  own  disciples  moved  under  His  leadership  out  of 
the  old  era  into  the  new  with  most  amazing  reluctance  and 
timidity.1 

To  give  these  men,  or  their  immediate  successors,  credit 
for  so  startling  an  innovation  as  the  attempt  to  interpret 
Christ's  divine  life  by  a  supernatural   generation,  is  to  lay 

1  Take  as  an  example  their  attitude  toward  His  death,  and  afterwards  their 
attitude  toward  the  admission  of  Gentiles. 


114  GOSPEL   NARRATIVES 

upon  them  a  task  which  they  were  utterly  incapable  of 
performing.     The  panic  into  which  the  more  conservative 
brethren  were  thrown  by  the  liberalism  of  Paul  gives  one 
an  indication  of  the  atmosphere  of  intense  conservatism,  in 
which  the  early  Jewish  Christians  had  been  trained,  and 
from  which  they  never  wholly  escaped.     It  required  all 
the  force  of  the  entire  Christian  revelation,  and  the  lifelong 
teaching  of  such  a  leader  as  John,  to  bring  men  of  Jewish 
blood  to  the  acceptance  of  the  idea  of  an  incarnation  at  all, 
and  many  revolted  from  it  finally,  to  the  loss  of  Christian 
fellowship  and  hope.     To  these  men,  the  chasm  which 
separates  the  wonder  stories  concerning  the  birth  of  Isaac 
and  the  other  Jewish  heroes  from  the  story  of  a  divine 
incarnation  by  birth  from  a  virgin  (a  thing  different  not  in 
degree  but  in  kind)  would  have  been  utterly  impassable. 
The  men,  who  hesitated  to  sit  down  at  meat  with  Gentiles, 
lest  it  be  an  innovation  upon  what  they  had  been  taught, 
would  have  hesitated  and  stopped  a  long  way  this  side  of 
the  invention  of  a  virgin  birth  to  explain  Christ's  divine  Son- 
ship.     Besides,  the  Gospels  were  formed  and  written  in  an 
atmosphere  of  controversy  and    criticism.      During   the 
latter  part  of  Christ's  ministry,  the  early  days  of  the  young 
church  after  the  Resurrection,  the  entire  period  of  the  for- 
mation of  the  canon,  the  disciples  were  in  the  midst  of  a 
continual  conflict  with  critics,  Jewish  and  heathen.     They 
were    forced  to   put  emphasis  upon  essentials,  to  guard 
every  statement,  so  as  not  to  leave  themselves  open  to  mis- 
construction.   They  would  be  loyal  to  the  teachings  of  the 
Lord,  and  to  all  authentic  traditions  concerning  Him,  but 
they  would  be  certain  not  to  form  innovations  which  might 
be  misconstrued  and  used  against  them.     In  the  composi- 
tion of  the  Gospels,  the  writers  would  be  under  pressure 
to  scrutinize  their  materials  so  as  to  guard  their  teaching 
from  error  and  misinterpretation. 


THE  OR  Y  OF  EARL  Y  MYTHO-  THE  OL  0  GICAL  ORIGIN  1 1  5 

In  view  of  these  facts,  I  fail  to  see  how  a  floating  tra- 
dition, without  sound  authority  to  recommend  it,  and  even 
to  compel  its  admittance  into  the  story,  could  have  forced 
its  way  into  the  Gospel.  In  speaking  of  the  genealogies 
(and  the  statement  applies  equally  to  all  the  documents 
of  the  Infancy),  Lobstein  says  :  "  Our  evangelists  evidently 
found  these  genealogies  in  older  documents ;  then,  because 
of  the  dearth  of  traditions  current  about  the  childhood  of 
Jesus,  they  dared  not  reject  any  of  those  which  came  to 
their  knowledge,  but  pieced  together  the  little  they  col- 
lected about  this  obscure  subject,  of  which  Jesus  Himself 
had  never  spoken."  ! 

Against  this  statement  is  to  be  urged  the  well-known 
fact  that  the  evangelists  constantly  took  the  liberty  to  omit 
those  materials,  even  well  authenticated,  which  did  not 
suit  their  purpose,  and  certainly  they  would  not  hesitate  to 
cut  out  documents  of  doubtful  validity  and  obscure  author- 
ship. Matthew  was  writing  to  Hebrews,  and  was  desir- 
ous of  commending  the  faith  to  his  countrymen.  He 
knew  the  Hebrew  mind,  and  understood  its  prejudices. 
He  must  have  known  that  the  statement  concerning  the 
manner  of  Christ's  birth  would  come  under  critical  and 
even  unfriendly  eyes,  and  we  may  be  sure  that  he  would 
have  scrutinized  the  document  with  exceeding  care  as  to 
its  origin  and  authority  before  admitting  it  into  his  Gospel. 
Keim  is  so  sure  of  this,  that  he  expends  the  whole  force 
of  his  criticism  in  the  attempt  to  cut  the  document  away 
from  Matthew.  He  may  fairly  be  said  to  have  failed  in 
the  attempt,  but  it  is  a  very  good  indication  that  the 
admission  of  Matthew's  responsibility  for  the  document  is 
fatal  to  the  mythical  theory. 

It  is  asking  a  great  deal  of  our  credulity  to  imagine  that 
the  virgin  birth  was  an  incident  invented  to  honor  Christ, 

1  Page  46. 


Il6  GOSPEL  NARRATIVES 

or  to  explain  His  divinity  by  any  Jewish-Christian  whom- 
soever, to  say  nothing  of  Matthew. 

It  is  difficult  to  believe  in  the  crass  stupidity  involved 
in  the  assumption  that  the  incident  would  result  in 
increased  honor  to  Jesus,  or  would  really  convince  any- 
body of  His  divine  nature,  who  was  not  already  convinced 
of  it  on  other  grounds. 

Why  should  any  one  have  chosen  the  idea  of  a  virgin 
birth,  in  order  to  make  Jesus  illustrious,  when  the  authors 
could  hardly  have  been  ignorant  that  probably  the  very 
first  use  made  of  the  doctrine  would  be  to  cast  discredit 
both  upon  Jesus  and  upon  His  mother  ? 

Mysterious  circumstances  surrounding  a  man's  birth  did 
not  then,  more  than  now,  serve  to  accredit  him  with  his 
contemporaries.  Even  the  heathen,  who  were  very  lenient 
in  such  matters,  were  rarely  bold  enough  to  attribute  dubi- 
ous ancestry  from  the  gods  only  one  generation  back. 

Among  the  Hebrews,  birth  out  of  wedlock  was  looked 
upon  with  intense  disfavor,  and  marked  the  family  and  the 
members  of  it  with  disgrace.  As  a  matter  of  painful  and 
disagreeable  fact,  germane  to  the  discussion,  Mary  has 
labored  under  this  charge  from  the  day  when  her  con- 
dition first  became  known  to  the  village  gossips  of  Naza- 
reth until  the  present. 

It  is  perfectly  plain  in  the  Gospel  that  a  storm  of  venom- 
ous detraction  burst  upon  the  blameless  maiden  of 
Nazareth. 

Some  writers  on  the  life  of  Christ  think  that  this  was 
the  reason  why  the  family  intended  to  leave  Nazareth  and 
remain  at  Bethlehem.  Even  Joseph,  one  of  the  most 
magnanimous  and  princely  souls  of  history,  could  be 
brought,  only  by  a  divine  revelation,  to  believe  in  the 
innocence  of  the  woman  whom  he  had  known  and  loved 
so  well.     His  reluctance  to  believe  in  the  possibility  of  a 


THEORY OF  EARLY  MYTHO- THEOLOGICAL  ORIGIN  II7 

virgin  birth  must  have  been  shared  by  every  person 
brought  into  contact  with  the  facts. 

The  anti-Christian  literature  of  the  second  century  is 
full  of  the  accusation — a  familiar  controversial  weapon  in 
dealing  with  Christians. 

It  is  clear  also  (and  this  is  the  most  significant  fact  of 
all)  that  Matthew  felt  this  difficulty  in  all  its  force,  and 
the  form  into  which  he  has  thrown  the  account  shows 
that  he  makes  the  most  careful  effort  to  surround  it  with 
every  safeguard.  This  is  the  explanation,  according  to 
my  judgment,  of  his  use  of  the  verse  from  Isaiah  vii,  14. 
He  uses  it  to  break  the  force  of  the  initial  prejudice  of  the 
Jewish  mind  against  the  statement,  by  suggesting  that 
Messianic  prophecy  contained  a  hint  of  the  marvelous 
occurrence.  This  also  is  the  reason  for  the  prominence 
he  gives  in  the  account  of  Joseph.  His  best  argument  for 
the  innocence  of  Mary  was  that  so  high-minded  and 
blameless  a  man  as  Joseph  had  made  her  his  wife,  and 
received  her  into  his  home. 

The  unjust  charge  against  her  spotless  character  was  a 
part  of  her  burden,  and  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  she 
had  a  prevision  of  it,  when  the  event  of  Jesus'  birth  was 
foretold  by  the  angel. 

Since  Matthew  felt  keenly  that  the  doctrine  was  one 
which  might  easily  be  turned  against  faith  in  Christ,1 
he  must  have  had  some  other  reason  for  admitting  the 
statement  into  his  account  than  a  document  of  doubtful 
authenticity  which  had  fallen  into  his  hands.  The  incident 
must  have  had  the  backing  of  some  authority  which  he 

xThe  difference  between  this  explanation  of  Matthew's  attitude  and 
Zahn's  elaborate  theory  (See  Das  Apostolische  Symbolum,  p.  58)  will  appear 
at  once.  Zahn  supposes  the  slander  to  be  already  in  circulation  which  is 
unlikely  (cf.  Machen,  Princeton  R.,  Oct.,  1905,  p.  651).  It  is  not  unlikely, 
however,  that  Matt,  could  foresee  the  likelihood  of  such  slander  resulting 
from  the  publication  of  his  narrative. 


Il8  GOSPEL  NARRATIVES 

dared  not  ignore  in  the  formation  of  his  story  of  Christ's 
life. 

It  may  not  seem  necessary  to  urge,  in  addition  to  the 
foregoing  arguments,  that  the  narrative  is  not  dogmatic 
in  any  sense,  and  could  not  well  be  the  product  of  the 
dogmatic  temper.  The  virgin  birth  is  stated  merely  as  a 
fact  of  history,  in  connection  with  other  facts  having  no 
particular  dogmatic  significance.  It  is  not  especially 
emphasized;  it  is  not  expounded  nor  interpreted;  nor 
is  it  argued  in  the  manner  of  the  dogmatic  teacher. 

Aside  from  the  sentence  attributed  to  the  angel,  there  is 
absolutely  no  hint  of  any  discursive  process  which  is  an 
integral  part  of  all  dogmatic  thinking,  and  that  verse  can- 
not be  pushed  very  far  without  breaking  it  down. 

Compared  with  the  elaboration  of  John's  thesis  of  the 
preexistence,  and  Paul's  argument  concerning  the  risen 
and  glorified  Christ,  or  even  the  implicit  process  of  reason- 
ing concerning  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus  which  underlies  the 
experience  of  the  disciples  from  Peter's  confession  at  Caesarea 
Philippi  to  His  sermon  at  Pentecost,  the  amount  of  dogmatic 
thinking  implied  in  the  Infancy  narrative  is  infinitesimal. 

We  conclude,  therefore,  that  the  explanation  of  the  In- 
fancy stories  as  a  phase  of  Christian  doctrine  is  inadmissible. 

We  are  still  to  face  the  question  whether  the  narrative 
is  myth  or  actual  history. 

The  admission  that  the  double  narrative  is  poetical  in 
its  character,  an  admission  which  we  may  freely  make, 
does  not  settle  the  question  at  issue ;  for  it  still  remains  to 
be  determined  whether  the  facts  created  the  poetry  or  the 
poetry  the  facts. 

Are  we  to  look  upon  the  Infancy  stories  simply  as 
beautiful,  religious,  legendary  poetry — a  phase  of  Chris- 
tian art — or  as  the  poetical,  but  essentially  truthful  rep- 
resentation of  facts  concerning  Christ  ?     There  are  some 


THEOR  Y  OF  EARL  Y  MYTHO- THEOLOGICAL  ORIGIN  1 1 9 

who  feel  that  the  question  is  not  a  vital  one;  but,  profoundly- 
convinced  that  permanent  religious  inspiration  is  impossible 
apart  from  connection  with  the  actual  facts  of  history,  I 
cannot  bring  myself  to  feel  that  the  question  is  unimportant. 

It  is  well  to  recall,  before  proceeding  further,  the  exact 
purpose  of  Lobstein's  theory.  It  is  to  preserve  the 
religious  value  of  the  narrative,  while  surrendering  its 
historical  character.  He  wishes  the  record  kept  and  ad- 
mired as  a  phase  of  early  Christian  thinking,  while  it  is 
frankly  given  up  as  a  statement  of  fact. 

The  tendency  to  hold  religious  values  as  something 
apart  from  questions  of  actual  fact  is  very  strong  in  our 
day.  But  in  the  present  instance,  religious  value  and 
actual  conformity  to  the  truth  of  history  are  inseparable. 
Close  attention  to  the  actual  texts  will  compel  us  to  the 
conclusion,  that  in  adopting  the  mythical  hypothesis  we 
are  doing  violence  to  the  writers'  conception  of  their  own 
work.  The  interpretation  of  this  account  as  a  spon- 
taneous, poetical,  religious  myth,  springing  up  in  minds 
misty  with  enthusiasm,  and  childlike  in  the  inability  to 
distinguish  between  dreams  and  reality,  unconsciously 
giving  an  outward  and  sensuous  expression  to  an  inward 
experience,  will  not  hold,  in  view  of  the  careful  elabora- 
tion which  the  story  has  received  at  the  hands  of  men 
competent  to  distinguish  between  dream  and  fact,  and 
sufficiently  trained  to  make  the  acceptance  of  loose 
mythical  material  entirely  inexcusable. 

There  is  at  the  beginning  of  Luke's  Gospel  an  explicit 
claim  to  historic  accuracy  for  the  account  which  follows, 
and  a  no  less  clear  and  emphatic  assertion  that  it  is 
worthy  of  credence,  because  it  was  received  from  eye- 
witnesses and  written  in  order  and  with  care.1  2 

1  Luke  i,  1-4. 

2  On  Luke's  Introduction,  see  remark  of  Ewald,  quoted  by  Meyer, 
Com.  on  Mark  and  Luke,  vol.  ii,  p.  273,  note. 


120  GOSPEL   NARRATIVES 

If  it  be  objected  that  this  claim  is  made  in  the  prologue, 
and  may  not  necessarily  refer  to  the  document  of  the 
Infancy  which  immediately  follows,  it  is  sufficient  to  refer 
to  the  document  itself,  in  which  lies  the  claim,  more  than 
once  unmistakably  made,  that  the  information  which  is 
recounted,  was  received  from  the  only  one  capable  of 
giving  it.1 2 

In  Matthew's  account  the  same  claim  is  implicitly 
made,  for  when  he  connects  the  leading  incidents  of 
Christ's  early  life  with  the  prophecies,  he  really  asserts  in 
the  most  solemn  and  emphatic  manner  that  they  are  his- 
torically true.3 

Documents  claiming  to  be  historical,  but  really  mythi- 
cal, can  have  no  religious  value  for  minds  with  a  sound 
understanding  of  the  meaning  and  value  of  history. 
Facts  are  too  sacred  to  be  juggled  with,  even  in  the 
interests  of  edification.  We  can  well  believe  that  naive, 
poetic  expressions  of  truth  have  permanent  value,  but 
not  when  they  misrepresent  actual  facts  of  history.  In 
particular,  the  religious  poetry-theory  breaks  down  at  the 
Herod  incident.  This  obstinately  refuses  to  be  harmo- 
nized with  the  explanation.  Had  this  incident  been  left 
out,  it  would  have  been  less  difficult  to  accept  the  rest  of 
the  story  as  poetry  or  religious  legend  without  serious 
loss  of  beauty  or  value.  But  a  story,  which  fastens  upon 
the  memory  of  a  human  being  a  crime  like  the  murder 
of  innocent  children,  must  be  historic  in  order  to  be 
tolerable.  The  writer  of  the  account  must  have  believed 
in  the  actual  occurrence  of  the  incident,  and  have  had 
good  grounds  for  his  belief,  or  he  is  stamped  as  a  vilifier 
of  his  fellow-men. 

1  Luke  ii,  19,  51. 

2  See  Ramsay,  Was  Christ  born  at  Bethlehem  ?  chap.  iv. 

3  Cf.  Bruce  :  Apologetics,  p.  456. 


THE  OR  Y  OF  EA  RL  Y  M  YTHO-  THE  OL  O  GICA  L  ORIGIN   1 2 1 

It  is  no  answer  to  say  that  Herod's  name  is  so  covered 
with  infamy  that  the  addition  of  this  charge  adds  but 
little  to  his  evil  fame.  From  the  ethical  point  of  view, 
one  is  not  justified  in  painting  even  the  Devil  blacker  than 
he  really  is. 

It  is  one  thing  to  picture  forth  a  beautiful  faith  under 
the  imagery  of  choiring  angels  and  rapt  Judaean  shep- 
herds and  star-led  Magi,  and  quite  another  to  fix  a  charge 
of  murder  for  all  time,  falsely,  upon  an  historic  character. 

The  mythical  hypothesis  destroys  the  religious  value 
of  the  document  in  which  the  account  is  found,  and 
places  a  serious  stain  upon  the  character  of  those  who 
recorded  it. 

In  looking  for  evidences  of  the  presence  of  the  historic 
spirit  in  these  accounts,  I  shall  begin  with  the  incident 
just  spoken  of — Herod's  murder  of  the  children  of  Beth- 
lehem. 

This  story  has  been  most  confidently  challenged,  but  with 
those  who  deny  its  historicity,  I  unhesitatingly  take  issue. 

If  internal  evidence  counts  for  anything,  the  incident  is 
historic.  In  most  arguments  concerning  this  incident,  the 
mooted  question  seems  to  be  whether  or  not  Herod  was 
capable  of  the  savagery  involved  in  such  a  deed.  Keim 
thinks  that  the  murder  of  the  children  was  in  excess  of 
any  other  act  of  his  career,  and  consequently  improbable. 
Others  point  to  the  series  of  murders  within  his  own  family 
as  evidence  that  he  would  stop  at  nothing. ! 

The  argument  ought  to  be  made  on  broader  grounds 
than  these. 

Herod  the  Great  was  marked  by  three  dominating 
characteristics,  in  the  intimate  blending  of  which  in  one 
composite  character  of  great  originality  and  force,  is  to  be 
found  the  explanation  of  his  career : — 

1  Schlosser,  View  of  Ancient  History  and  Civilization,  vol.  iii,  p.  261. 


122  GOSPEL   NARRATIVES 

1.  An  imperious  and  all  controlling  ambition.1 

2.  A  profound  subtlety  of  mind  in  dealing  with  men. 

3.  A  ruthless  and  tigerish  temper  when  once  his  jeal- 
ousies and  fears  were  aroused. 

Let  us  look  at  these  in  order : — 

Herod's  ambition  was  strictly  limited  by  the  circum- 
stances of  his  life.  It  never  soared  beyond  the  purpose  of 
being  the  true  friend  and  trusted  ally  of  Rome.  Within 
those  limits,  however,  his  ambition  ruled  him  body  and 
mind.  He  held  his  Judaean  kingdom  with  a  grip  that  could 
not  be  shaken  loose  for  a  generation  after  his  death.  And 
to  keep  the  favor  of  Rome,  and  to  maintain  his  position  in 
his  kingdom,  no  price  in  blood  or  treasure  was  too  great 
to  pay.     His  purpose  was  as  inflexible  as  fate. 

He  was  gifted,  too,  in  a  superlative  degree,  with  Oriental 
subtlety  of  mind.  He  gained  his  ends  by  indirection,  often 
without  the  direct  exercise  of  power.  He  must  indeed 
have  been  a  master  of  diplomacy  who  could  have  held  for 
thirty-six  years  the  uncertain  favor  of  the  successive  rulers 
of  Rome,  through  all  the  upheavals  of  that  tumultuous 
transition  from  the  republic  to  the  empire,  from  Julius 
Caesar  to  Augustus.  He  had  the  most  turbulent  province 
in  the  empire  to  rule  over ;  he  was  hated  by  the  people ; 
he  was  surrounded  by  jealous  Roman  officials ;  he  had 
bitter  and  persistent  and  powerful  enemies,  among  them 
Cleopatra,  the  sorceress  of  Egypt,  and  Syllaeus,  the  Ara- 
bian. He  was  often  brought  to  the  verge  of  ruin,  but  by 
his  skill  and  astuteness  averted  disaster  again  and  again. 
His  unshaken  power  in  a  time  of  upheaval,  his  steadfast 
career  through  storm  and  whirlwind,  remains  one  of  the 
marvels  of  history. 

1  See  Riggs,  Mac.  and  Roman  Periods,  Chap.  V.,  Farrar,  The  Herods  and 
other  works  on  period  of  Herod,  but  especially  the  primal  authority  Josephus, 
Anth.,  Bk  3,  XIV,  seq.     B.  J.,  Bk.  I,  xl. 


THEORY OF  EARLY  MYTHO-THEOLOGICAL  ORIGIN  123 

His  third  leading  characteristic  was  utterly  unlike  the 
other  two,  and  often  in  conflict  with  them.  He  was  not 
by  nature  bloodthirsty.  That  seems  to  me  clear  from  all 
his  early  history.  He  did  not  kill  for  the  pleasure  of  kill- 
ing ;  but  his  ambition  was  sleepless  and  jealous.  He  was 
of  suspicious  temper ;  his  fears  were  easily  worked  upon, 
and,  when  once  aroused,  he  was  like  a  baited  beast ;  he 
saw  all  things  through  a  red  haze,  and  struck  blindly  at 
friend  and  foe,  repeatedly  wounding  himself  to  the  very 
quick.  He  was  as  one  possessed ;  his  fury  was  the  raging 
of  a  madman. 

Now,  with  this  in  mind,  turn  to  the  account  of  Matthew. 
There  is  far  more  in  the  story  than  mere  savagery. 
Indeed  the  element  of  savagery  has  been  strangely  exag- 
gerated. So  far  as  the  number  of  children  involved  is 
concerned,  Farrar1  is  probably  right  in  his  estimate  that 
no  more  than  twenty  children  perished.  But  there  is  a 
strange  verisimilitude  in  the  record.  There  is,  first,  the 
sleepless  watchfulness  that  brought  him  into  contact  with 
the  facts.  Of  one  thing  we  may  be  certain,  that  if  there 
was  any  talk  about  a  newborn  king  in  circulation,  Herod 
knew  about  it.  He  went  in  disguise  among  the  people  to 
find  out  what  they  were  talking  about,  and  his  spies  were 
everywhere.  He  would  have  known,  and  would  have  acted 
with  the  promptitude  attributed  to  him  in  the  account. 
Notice  also  the  subtlety  with  which  he  dealt  with  the 
wise  men.  No  hint  of  hostile  intent  was  allowed  to  appear. 
With  a  devout  demeanor,  which  none  knew  better  how  to 
assume  when  it  pleased  him,  Herod  asked  permission  to 
pay  his  homage  with  them  at  the  cradle  of  the  new  king. 
He  meant  no  wholesale  murder.  He  meant  to  get  his 
hands  upon  this  dangerous  infant,  and,  if  he  had  succeeded, 
no  other  children  would  have  suffered.      He  took  the 

1  Life  of  Christ,  vol.  i,  p.  45,  note. 


124  GOSPEL   NARRATIVES 

method,  of  which  he  was  so  complete  a  master,  to  bring 
about  the  desired  end.  And,  so  far  as  they  were  con- 
cerned, he  was  successful.  He  fooled  them  completely, 
and  it  required  a  superhuman  revelation  to  avert  the  catas- 
trophe. Then,  when  he  found  that  the  wise  men  had 
eluded  him,  he  was  "  wroth,"  the  red  mist  rose  again,  and 
he  struck  blindly  through  the  haze  at  his  unseen  foe. 

It  has  been  objected  that  this  murder  was  unnecessary. 
True,  but  so  also  was  the  murder  of  Mariamne,  and  of 
Alexander,  and  of  Aristobulus,  and  of  scores  of  others 
falsely  accused.  All  these  executions  were  futile  and  un- 
necessary. They  were  the  acts  of  a  man  of  fierce  temper 
goaded  to  madness  by  jealousies  and  fears.  So  also  was 
the  murder  of  the  children  of  Bethlehem. 

We  gain  a  little  more  light  upon  the  incident  by  compar- 
ing it  with  two  others  which  occurred  almost  at  the  same 
time.  Herod  had  discovered  that  his  favorite  son  Antipater x 
was  plotting  against  him.  Characteristically,  his  passion- 
ate love  turned  at  once  to  murderous  hatred,  and  he  only 
awaited  the  opportunity  to  destroy  his  unnatural  son. 
Antipater  had  used  Rome  as  the  basis  of  his  operations, 
and  still  lingered  at  the  capital.  Herod,  therefore,  sent 
him  a  letter,  full  of  fatherly  affection,  urging  him  to  come 
home,  and  hinting  at  great  honors  in  store  for  him  upon 
his  return.  Antipater  took  the  bait,  and  returned  to 
Palestine,  only  to  be  received  in  disgrace,  stripped  of  all 
his  honors,  tried  and  condemned  to  death. 

At  the  same  time,  Herod  was  sinking  to  the  grave 
under  a  complication  of  disorders  that  made  the  few 
remaining  weeks  of  his  life  a  living  torment.  In  addition 
to  this,  he  was  goaded  to  desperation  by  the  hatred  of  the 
people  and  the  plots  against  him  on  every  side.  He 
therefore,  with  a  touch   of  that  sardonic  humor,  which 

1  Jos.  Ant.,  B.  17,  IV  and  V. 


THEOR  Y  OF  EARL  Y  MYTHO-  THEOLOGICAL  ORIGIN  1 25 

never  quite  deserted  him  even  in  articulo  mortis,  sent  for 
the  principal  men  through  the  country,  and  shut  them  up 
in  the  race  course  at  Jericho  with  orders  that,  at  the  moment 
of  his  death,  they  should  be  slain,  in  order  that  there 
might  be  mourning  for  him  in  the  nation.  This  infamous 
command  was  not  carried  out — none  the  less,  it  was 
Herod's  purpose.  In  the  light  of  this  incident,  any  doubt 
as  to  the  historicity  of  the  murder  of  the  children  on  the 
ground  of  its  unnatural  savagery  seems  slightly  far- 
fetched. 

Through  the  entire  account,  there  are  so  many  touches 
of  truth,  such  comprehensive  psychological  accuracy, 
such  fitness  in  all  its  details  with  the  career  of  Herod, 
such  appositeness  to  the  circumstances  of  the  time,  as 
to  compel  one  to  the  conclusion  that  the  author  knew 
whereof  he  wrote. 

The  invention  of  an  incident  involving  the  interaction 
of  such  peculiar  and  individual  qualities  as  are  exhibited 
in  Herod's  dealing  with  the  wise  men  and  the  child,  by  a 
simple  and  artless  writer  but  a  few  years  removed  from 
the  character  in  question,  lies  well  over  the  line  of  the 
impossible.  If  the  incident  of  the  massacre  of  the  children 
has  been  confidently  challenged,  the  visit  of  the  Magi  has 
been  contemptuously  dismissed  as  unworthy  of  more  than 
passing  notice.  It  is  claimed  that  it  has  all  the  marks  of 
legend.  But  coming  to  the  incident  from  a  study  of  the 
related  occurrence  of  the  massacre,  we  have  good  reason 
for  looking  at  it  rather  more  favorably. 

Many  thoughtful  and  devout  men  have  sought  to  explain 
the  story  of  the  Magi  and  the  star  on  natural  grounds. 
These  attempts  have  been  unfavorably  received  on  the 
whole,  because  all  explanations  seem  to  be  contradicted  by 
the  plain  statements  of  the  text.  Alford's  explanation  is 
based  upon  the  fact  that  a  remarkable  conjunction  of  the 


126  GOSPEL  NARRATIVES 

planets,  Jupiter  and  Saturn,  in  the  constellation  Pisces 
occurred  three  times  in  the  year  Seven  of  our  era.  Dean 
Alford  states  the  case  from  his  point  of  view,  thus  :  "  Sup- 
posing the  Magi  to  have  seen  the  first  of  these  three  con- 
junctions, they  saw  it  actually  '  in  the  east,'  for  on  the  29th 
of  May  it  would  rise  three  and  a  half  hours  before  sunrise. 
If  they  then  took  their  journey,  and  arrived  at  Jerusalem 
in  a  little  more  than  five  months  (the  September  conjunc- 
tion would  occur),  if  they  performed  the  route  from  Jerusa- 
lem to  Bethlehem,  the  December  conjunction  would  be 
before  them  in  the  direction  of  Bethlehem."  l 

The  usual  objections  made  to  Alford's  explanation  may 
be  conveniently  expressed  in  the  words  of  Dr.  Gloag: 
"  In  all  probability,  the  star  was  a  supernatural  phenom- 
enon, as  it  is  apparently  so  described  in  the  narrative — 
some  meteor  divinely  formed  for  the  purpose,  which,  by 
its  movements,  guided  the  wise  men  to  the  infant 
Messiah."  But  does  the  account  so  describe  the  celestial 
phenomenon  which  accompanied  the  coming  of  the  wise 
men? 

It  is  not  necessary  nor  wise  to  deny  that  they  were 
divinely  led  to  the  manger  of  the  newborn  King.  The 
Providence  which  operates  unceasingly  through  all  the 
affairs  of  the  world,  and  guides  the  lives  of  all  devout  and 
truthful  men,  would  certainly  continue  in  operation  in  an 
event  so  critical  in  the  history  of  the  world  as  the  birth 
of  Jesus  Christ. 

It  is  inherently  reasonable  that  some  representatives  of 
the  Gentile  world  should  be  brought  into  connection  with 
an  occurrence  so  fraught  with  significance  for  them.  It  is 
also  reasonable  to  expect  that  God  would  use  symbols 
recognized  to  be  sacred  among  the  people  to  whom  He 
wished  to  communicate  the  good  tidings.     It  has   been 

1  Grk.  Test.     Note  on  Matt,  ii,  I  and  2. 


THEORY  OF  EARLY  MYTIIOTIIEOLOGICAL  ORIGIN  1 27 

objected  that  no  motive  worthy  of  Deity  is  assignable  for 
the  use  as  a  means  of  revelation  of  "  the  false  opinion  of 
certain  Magi  concerning  the  significance  of  the  stars."  ! 

The  objection  cannot  stand.  If  God  is  to  communi- 
cate with  men  at  all,  He  must  use  a  language  which  they 
understand,  and  employ  symbols  which  they  recognize  as 
sacred.  The  argument  would  apply  equally  to  all  use  of 
imperfect  media  of  revelation,  even  to  the  use  of  human 
language,  which  is  confessedly  inadequate  to  convey 
divine  truth  in  all  its  fullness.  If  the  members  of  this 
sect,  who  regulated  all  the  important  affairs  of  life  by  the 
stars,  were  to  be  brought  to  Christ  at  all,  it  must  have 
been  through  some  such  medium  as  the  account  describes. 
A  rare  and  beautiful  conjunction  of  planets,  such  as  the 
one  described  as  occurring  at  this  time,  would  infallibly 
have  led  the  Magi  to  expect  some  signal  event  in  the 
affairs  of  men. 

It  is  well  known  that  the  birth  of  Christ  came  just  at  a 
time  of  expectancy.  The  hope  that  God  would  manifest 
himself  in  an  especial  manner  was  cherished  far  beyond 
the  borders  of  Israel.  In  the  East  the  hope  was  particu- 
larly intense.  What  more  probable,  therefore,  than  the 
use  of  the  peculiar  conditions  of  the  heavenly  bodies  at 
that  time  to  work  the  conviction  that  God  had  prepared 
the  special  manifestation  of  Himself  for  which  they  had 
been  waiting  and  longing.  Add  to  this  the  probability 
that  Jewish  writings,  widely  circulated  during  the  disper- 
sion, had  given  definiteness  of  form  to  the  vague  and 
general  hopes  which  the  Magi  shared  with  the  rest  of  the 
world,  and  we  have  the  historical  background  of  the 
incident. 

While  a  rational  interpretation  of  the  incident  must 
admit  the  presence  of  a  supernatural  element,  care  should 
1  Ezra  Abbott. 


128  GOSPEL   NARRATIVES 

be  taken  to  recognize  the  limits  of  it.  This,  it  seems  to 
me,  has  not  been  sufficiently  done.  If,  as  most  commen- 
tators on  both  sides  of  the  controversy  seem  to  hold,  the 
star  was  a  purely  supernatural  manifestation,  formed  for 
the  purpose  of  guiding  the  wise  men,  it  is  reasonable  to 
ask :  "  Why  did  it  not  do  its  appointed  work  ?"  When 
the  wise  men  came  to  Judaea,  they  went  to  Jerusalem, 
making  inquiries  as  they  went.  The  celestial  phenomenon 
pointed  them  to  Judaea,  but  it  did  not  lead  them  to  Beth- 
lehem, nor  did  it  indicate  where  the  Babe  was.  Herod 
heard  of  the  inquiry ;  questioned  the  Jewish  scholars  as 
to  the  probable  birthplace  of  the  expected  King;  and 
sent  the  wise  men  to  Bethlehem.  It  was  after  the  inter- 
view with  Herod  that  the  star  "  went  before  them,  till  it 
came  and  stood  over  where  the  young  child  was."  Is  it 
conceivable  that  a  miraculous  star,  formed  for  the  purpose 
of  guiding  the  wise  men  to  the  presence  of  Jesus,  would 
have  had  to  wait  until  Herod  had  found  out  where  the 
Babe  was  likely  to  be  ? 

It  is  evident  enough,  it  would  seem,  that  we  have  a 
poetical  rendering  of  the  fact  that  the  bright  planets,  seen 
from  Jerusalem  in  the  direction  of  Bethlehem,  would 
appear  to  move  as  they  moved,  and  would  also  appear  to 
hover  over  the  house  in  which  the  child  lay. 

A  believer  in  astrology  would  be  certain  to  say,  under 
such  circumstances,  that  the  star  went  before  them  and 
pointed  out  the  way.  Matthew's  account  has  every 
appearance  of  being  taken  verbatim  from  some  one  who 
heard  the  wise  men  tell  their  own  story.  It  is  colored 
by  their  view  of  the  transaction.  It  could  hardly  have 
been  originated  by  a  Jew.  Moreover,  the  presence  of  the 
historical  spirit  is  indicated  by  the  statement,  that  the  star 
in  and  of  itself  did  not  lead  to  the  presence  of  the  Babe. 
A  legend-maker   would  have  omitted  such  a  feature  as 


THEOR  Y  OF  EARL  Y  MYTHO- THEOLOGICAL  ORIGIN  1 29 

contradictory  in  appearance  and  likely  to  discredit  the 
entire  story,  and  would  have  led  the  wise  men  directly  to 
the  abiding  place  of  the  holy  family. 

It  will  be  noticed  that  I  found  no  argument  upon  the 
certainty  of  Alford's  explanation  being  correct.  I  do  not 
know  whether  the  explanation  is  correct  or  not.  I  have 
no  means  of  knowing.  I  am  simply  contending  that  the 
objection  to  it  drawn  from  the  text  does  not  hold.  Accord- 
ing to  the  account,  the  star  was  not  necessarily  a  special 
creation  for  the  purpose  of  leading  the  visitors.  It  rather 
makes  clear  the  fact  that  the  wise  men  were  led  in  accord- 
ance with  the  genius  of  their  own  system.  Moreover,  the 
historical  temper  is  sufficiently  manifest,  and  the  vivid  and 
idiomatic  description  argues  so  strongly  for  nearly  first- 
hand narration,  that  the  hypothesis  of  a  legendary  origin 
fails  to  account  for  the  story. 

When  we  turn  to  the  account  given  by  Luke,  in  spite 
of  the  fact  that  it  is  far  more  poetical  than  Matthew's,  there 
are,  none  the  less,  many  significant  touches  which  indicate 
that  we  are  dealing  with  actual  historical  records  cast  into 
poetical  forms.  Any  adequate  interpretation  of  the  docu- 
ments must  do  equal  justice  to  both  these  elements — the 
self-evident  truthfulness  and  the  poetic  adornment.  In  order 
to  do  this,  it  is  not  necessary  to  suppose  that  the  songs  of 
Mary  and  Zacharias,  and  the  poetical  exclamation  spoken 
by  Simeon  in  the  temple,  were  as  a  matter  of  literal  fact, 
spoken  off-hand  in  the  elaborate  poetic  form  in  which  they 
appear  in  the  third  Gospel.  This  elaborate  semi-public 
declamation  of  poetry  seems  to  imply  a  stiff  and  formal, 
and  almost  histrionic,  quality  in  the  scenes  quite  at  vari- 
ance with  the  spirit  of  the  narrative.  It  seems  to  me  per- 
fectly clear,  that  we  are  to  look  upon  these  songs  as  the 
literary  expression  of  the  thoughts  and  emotions  which 
filled  the  minds  of  persons  who  had  passed  through  high 
9 


130  GOSPEL   NARRATIVES 

and  unique  experiences,  and  had  meditated  upon  them  in 
the  light  of  Scripture.  They  must  have  been  composed 
by  members  of  a  group  absolutely  dominated  by  Old 
Testament  conceptions,  and  stirred  to  poetical  expression 
by  meditation  upon  God's  wonderful  dealings  with  them. 

Connecting  these  after  meditations  with  the  events  which 
gave  rise  to  them  is  not  only  legitimate  in  a  poetic  account, 
but  is  an  inevitable  accompaniment  of  the  literary  form. 
We  have  at  least  three  precedents  in  the  Old  Testament 
for  this  treatment  of  religious  experiences  in  the  light  of 
after  events.  In  Isaiah  vi,  we  have,  as  a  prologue  to  the 
prophet's  career,  a  narrative  of  his  call  and  consecration, 
which  could  have  been  written  only  after  a  long  series  of 
experiences  had  opened  up  to  him  the  meaning  of  his 
life,  and  of  God's  dealings  with  him  from  the  beginning. l 
In  Jeremiah  xxxii,  6-S,  we  have  a  clear  exposition  of  the 
interpretation  which  after  events  give  to  experiences  previ- 
ously imperfectly  understood.  He  says  after  the  events 
occurred  :  "  Then  I  knew  that  this  was  the  word  of  the 
Lord.  "  In  Hosea  i,  according  to  the  usual  modern  inter- 
pretation, the  command  said  to  have  been  issued  to  the 
prophet  to  marry  a  woman  of  evil  life,  which  has  given 
so  much  trouble  to  commentators,  is  to  be  understood  as 
a  reading  of  earlier  experiences  in  the  light  of  after  events. 
These  three  instances  are  exactly  parallel  with  the  inter- 
pretation which  we  are  giving  of  the  songs  in  Luke. 

It  is  a  literary  device  which  is  necessary  to  any  well- 
told  historical  account,  and  involves  no  juggling  with 
essential  facts.  It  simply  makes  explicit,  for  purposes  of 
interpretation,  what  was  implicit  in  the  experience  itself. 2 

That  in  the  present  instance  the  literary  form  was  not 
due  to  Luke  or  to  any  other  writer  of  Gentile  antecedents, 

1  See  G.  A.  Smith,  Isa.,  vol.  i,  p.  57. 

*  It  is  clear  also  from  the  absence  of  all  references  to  Jesus'  death  that 
the  time  of  composition  was  not  long  subsequent  to  the  events  recorded. 


THEORY OF  EARLY  MYTHO- THEOLOGICAL  ORIGIN  131 

and  is  therefore  very  close  to  first-hand  narrative,  is  easily 
demonstrable.  The  songs  in  the  Gospels  are  in  almost 
every  line  echoes  of  the  Old  Testament. x  That  Luke 
himself  was  incapable  of  creating  poems  with  this  minute 
assonance  with  the  Old  Testament  surely  needs  no 
comment. 

If  this  is  a  reasonable  explanation  of  the  songs  in  Luke, 
the  question  now  arises  how  much  farther  are  we  to  carry 
the  same  mode  of  exposition.  We  wish  to  maintain  a  fair 
balance  between  the  historic  essence  and  the  poetic  form. 
We  wish,  on  the  one  hand,  to  be  just  to  the  self-evident 
and  vivid  truthfulness  of  the  account,  and,  on  the  other,  to 
do  equal  justice  to  the  literary  qualities  which  are  no  less 
marked  and  striking.  How,  then,  are  the  annunciations 
and  dreams  to  be  interpreted, — as  literal  fact  or  poetic 
drapery  ?  At  the  outset,  it  is  to  be  noted  that  the  sepa- 
rate accounts  differ  consistently  in  the  method  of  the  divine 
revelation.  In  Luke's  account,  the  divine  word  is  invari- 
ably through  annunciation. 2  In  Matthew  the  same  result 
is  attained  through  dreams. 3 

Does  this  consistently-maintained  difference  imply  that 
God  manifested  Himself  invariably  in  one  way  to  Mary  and 
in  another  to  Joseph  ?  Or  does  it  imply  that  the  difference 
is  due  to  the  fact  that  in  each  case  we  have  an  attempt  to 
interpret  a  transcendent  experience,  which  could  be  made 
intelligible  to  other  minds  only  under  some  such  form  of 
treatment  ? 4 

lCf.  Luke  i,  46-55,  with  I  Sam.  ii,  1-10;  Luke  i,  68-79,  with  Ps.  lxii, 
17,  18  and  C.  48;  lxxx,  14,  15  ;  Luke  i,  76  with  Isa.  xl,  3-5;  Luke  i,  78 
with  Isa.  ix,  2  ;  Luke  ii,  32  with  Gen.  xii,  1-3 ;  Isa.  xlix,  6. 

1  Luke  i,  II,  26;  ii,  9. 

*  Matt,  i,  20;  ii,  12,  19,  22. 

4  Dr.  Briggs  {Messiah  of  the  Gospels,  pp.  49  f,)  holds  that  the  conception 
of  Jesus  took  place  in  a  theophany,  for,  as  he  urges,  "  it  not  only  represents 
that  the  divine  power  covered  her  with  a  shadow,  but  this  is  to  be  thought 


132  GOSPEL   NARRATIVES 

There  are  certain  facts  to  be  explained,  and  the  narra- 
tives as  they  stand  explain  them.  Granted  that  the  events 
took  place  at  all,  some  supernatural  machinery  was  neces- 
sary to  account  for  them.  Why  did  the  Magi  come  to 
Judaea  just  at  that  time  ?  The  answer  to  this  is  compara- 
tively simple  up  to  a  certain  point.  A  rare  combination 
of  planets  convinced  a  group  of  astrologers,  who  had  read 
the  Hebrew  Scriptures  and  were  looking  for  a  great  ruler 
to  appear  among  the  Jews,  that  the  time  had  come.  Their 
expectations  led  them  to  Judaea,  and  then  by  inquiry 
they  were  led  to  Bethlehem.  But,  having  reached  Beth- 
lehem and  seen  the  child,  how  did  they  know  that  this 
humble  babe  was  the  promised  King  ?  There  is  an  irre- 
ducible element  of  immediate  revelation  involved  in  the 
very  necessities  of  the  case. 

of  after  the  uniform  usage  of  Scripture  as  a  bright  cloud  of  glory,  hovering 
over  her,  resting  upon  her  or  enveloping  her  with  a  halo  of  divinity,  in  the 
moment  when  the  divine  energy  enabled  her  to  conceive  the  child  Jesus," 
and  in  a  note  he  says:  "  The  same  verb,  cttkjki&Zc),  is  used  in  the  lxx  of 
Exodus  xl,  35,  with  reference  to  the  cloud  of  glory  of  the  tabernacle,  and 
also  to  the  theophanic  cloud  of  the  Transfiguration  in  Matthew  xiii,  5  ; 
Mark  ix,  7 ;  Luke  ix,  34.  The  cloud  of  glory  is  always  connected  with 
God,  and  implies  more  than  the  agency  of  the  divine  spirit. " 

So  far  as  the  language  is  concerned,  this  is  undoubtedly  correct,  but  it 
is  to  be  remembered  that  the  words  occur  in  the  highly-poetized  message 
of  the  angel  previous  to  the  conception,  and  not  in  the  historical  state- 
ment of  what  actually  occurred.  The  statement,  therefore,  does  not  justify 
us  in  asserting  anything  more,  than  that  the  narrative  of  the  announcement 
made  to  Mary  concerning  the  mysterious  experience  which  was  to  befall 
her  took  the  familiar  Old  Testament  form.  How  otherwise  could  it  more 
appropriately  be  expressed  ?  To  affirm  that  there  was  anything  physically 
visible  in  her  experience  seems  to  me  at  once  dangerous  and  beyond  Scripture. 
I  fail  to  discover  any  adequate  basis  for  the  opinion,  held  in  common  by 
Keim  and  Briggs,  that  Luke  intends  to  depict  the  great  mystery  in  a  sensu- 
ous way.  The  words  upon  which  this  opinion  is  based  are  poetical,  and 
are  a  part  of  the  literary  form.  They  should  be  interpreted,  in  harmony 
with  the  chaste  reserve  which  marks  the  rest  of  Luke's  account,  as  hinting 
at,  but  not  disclosing,  the  facts. 


THEORY  OF  EARLY  MYTHO-THEOLOGICAL  ORIGIN  1 33 

Take  up  the  incident  of  the  shepherds  and  the  same 
necessity  appears.  How  did  they  know  that  the  Messiah 
was  born  that  night  and  in  Bethlehem,  and  that  by  going 
thither  they  should  be  able  to  find  him  ?  It  is  necessary 
to  postulate  some  experience  which  gave  them  (1)  an  inti- 
mation of  the  sacred  birth,  and  (2)  definite  directions  as  to 
the  place  where  He  might  be  found.  There  is  a  striking 
touch  of  the  unexpected  in  the  account  as  it  stands.  The 
sign  offered  by  the  angel  was :  "  Ye  shall  find  the  babe  wrap- 
ped in  swaddling  clothes,  lying  in  a  manger."  Nothing 
could  be  imagined  more  remote  from  ordinary  Jewish 
expectations  than  the  condition  and  circumstances  of  the 
holy  Child. l  His  helplessness  and  assimilation  to  ordi- 
nary human  conditions  were  accentuated  by  the  mention 
of  the  bands,  and  His  extreme  humiliation  by  His  place  in 
the  manger.  It  would  seem  that  nothing  less  than  a 
deputation  of  angels  would  be  sufficient  to  authenticate  so 
strange  a  sign  to  men  of  Jewish  thought  and  feeling.  In 
addition  to  this,  some  one  with  authority  must  have  told 
them  that  they  had  found  the  actual  babe  they  sought. 
There  may  have  been  several  babies  born  in  overcrowded 
Bethlehem  that  night,  and  more  than  one  mother  may 
have  been  obliged  to  lay  her  child  in  the  straw.  But  even 
now  we  are  only  at  the  beginning  of  the  problem.  In 
order  to  account  for  the  assurance  reached  by  the  shep- 
herds and  Magi,  that  they  had  found  the  child  for  whom 
they  sought,  it  is  necessary  to  postulate  a  knowledge  on 
the  part  of  Joseph  and  Mary  that  Mary's  child  was  the 
King  sought  by  the  visitors.  And  Mary  herself  must 
have  been  made  aware  of  the  fact  that  she  was  to  become 
the  virgin  mother  of  the  Messiah.  The  occurrence  of 
such  an  event  without  clear  previous  announcement  would 
be  certain  to  eventuate  in  the  madness  of  the  subject. 

1  Cf.  Edersheim  L.  J.  M.,  vol.  i,  p.  186. 


134  GOSPEL  NARRATIVES 

In  the  case  of  Joseph,  also,  it  is  perfectly  evident  that  he 
must  have  been  prepared  for  the  historic  task  of  guarding 
the  mother  and  the  child.  Matthew's  narrative  that 
Joseph  was  kept  by  a  supernatural  revelation  from  repudi- 
ating his  betrothed  is  strictly  in  accordance  with  the  neces- 
sities of  the  case.  The  consistent  representations  in  both 
accounts  that  the  persons  involved  in  this  wonderful  cycle 
of  events  were  profoundly  agitated  by  the  information 
brought  to  them  is  also  psychologically  correct.  Joseph 
must  have  been  convinced  beyond  the  shadow  of  a  doubt 
that  the  event  of  Jesus'  birth  was  supernatural,  or  else  the 
lower  inference  concerning  it  would  have  been  inevitable. 
Under  whatever  form  the  revelation  was  made,  it  must  have 
come  with  such  unmistakable  clearness  and  cogent  force 
as  to  drive  away  the  last  shadow  of  misgiving  from  his 
mind.  An  ordinary  dream  on  such  a  subject  would  seem 
to  require  some  additional  support.  The  dream  must  have 
been  of  such  a  nature — so  entirely  out  of  the  ordinary — as 
to  authenticate  itself. 

In  other  words,  looking  at  the  narrative  as  a  whole,  it 
is  clear  that  if  the  miraculous  birth  occurred  at  all,  it  must 
have  been  accompanied  by  incidents  equivalent  to  those 
recorded  in  the  text.  The  influence  said  to  have  been 
exercised  upon  the  minds  of  Joseph  and  Mary  by  angels 
and  dreams  was  absolutely  essential,  or  the  whole  connec- 
tion of  events  would  have  issued  in  confusion  and  disaster. 
There  is  an  interior  logical  consistency  in  the  accounts  as 
they  stand  which  compels  us  to  affirm,  that  if  the  event 
happened  at  all,  it  must  have  happened  in  some  such  way. 
Moreover,  if  we  throw  the  entire  story  out  of  court  as 
poetic  mythology,  we  have  lessened  the  difficulty,  but  we 
have  not  removed  it.  For  even  if  the  Magi  and  shepherds 
never  came,  and  Jesus  was  derived  in  the  ordinary  way 
from  Joseph  and  Mary,  we  are  still  face  to  face  with  the 


THEORY  OF  EARLY  MYTHO-THEOLOGICAL  ORIGIN  I35 

necessity  of  postulating  some  special  information  to  the 
parents  as  to  the  prospects  of  their  child,  in  order  that  He 
might  be  guarded  and  prepared  for  His  task,  or  else  of 
believing  that  He  was  not  designated  from  the  beginning 
for  His  task,  but  was  chosen  in  middle  life,  suddenly  and 
without  previous  warning. 

This  latter  supposition  is  contradicted  by  incidental  refer- 
ences in  Scripture,  is  false  to  all  that  we  know  of  human 
psychology,  which  affirms  that  a  man's  life  is  a  unit 
throughout,  and  gives  to  the  Messianic  career  of  Jesus  an 
artificial  and  revolutionary  character  which  is  very  revolt- 
ing as  well  as  unnatural.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  in  view  of 
the  mature  life  of  Jesus  and  His  career  as  Messiah,  we  are 
shut  up  to  one  of  two  conclusions.  Either  there  was  no 
sacred  childhood  and  youth,  and  the  beginnings  of  Jesus' 
life  have  no  vital  connection  with  His  public  career,  or  else 
the  incidents  of  His  childhood  and  youth  must  have  been 
something  very  like  those  recorded  in  the  narratives  under 
review. 

In  view  of  all  the  facts,  therefore,  it  would  seem  that 
either  one  of  two  essentially  related  convictions  is  reason- 
ably tenable.  We  may  hold  that  the  events  occurred  liter- 
ally as  they  are  told,  and  that  the  account  is  poetical  only 
in  the  form  of  words  used.  On  the  other  hand,  we  may 
believe,  without  surrender  of  the  vital  point  at  issue,  that 
the  dreams  and  annunciations,  and  other  machinery  of 
revelation  form  the  poetic  accessories  and  literary  draping 
of  experiences  so  transcendent  that  the  subjects  of  them 
could  not  relate  them  intelligibly  to  others,  except  under 
the  forms  hallowed  by  usage  and  familiar  to  those 
acquainted  with  the  narrative  of  the  old  covenant.1 

Either  of  these  conclusions  is  easier  and  more  rational 
than   the   surrender   of   the   essential    historicity   of  the 

1  Cf.  Gore  :  Dissertations,  p,  21. 


I36  GOSPEL  NARRATIVES 

accounts.  The  revelation  of  God's  purpose  to  the  human 
servants  who  were  called,  in  circumstances  of  trial  and 
difficulty,  to  aid  in  carrying  it  out  is  the  essential  thing — 
the  form  of  that  revelation  is  a  purely  secondary  matter.1 

Every  consideration  to  prove  that  the  central  event  did 
happen  adds  force  to  the  conclusion,  that  the  account  is 
correct  and  historic  in  essence,  though  poetical  in  form. 
In  favor  of  this  interpretation  of  the  record,  I  urge  three 
specifications  :  First,  the  absolute  congruity  between  the 
spirit  and  expression  of  the  Infancy  section  with  the  known 
beliefs  and  feelings  of  those  from  whom  it  purports  to  be 
derived.  We  have  already  seen  that  the  character  of  the 
document  points  to  a  very  early  origin.  It  moves  within 
a  range  of  Messianic  ideas  very  soon  outgrown  by  the  dis- 
ciples. But  this  peculiarity  is  an  indication  not  only  of 
date,  but  also  evidence  of  great  value  as  to  the  sources  of 
the  document. 

The  decidedly  Aramaic  cast  of  the  Greek  in  the  narra- 
tive of  Luke  has  often  been  noticed,  and  various  attempts 
have  been  made  to  account  for  it.  But  two  explanations, 
however,  seem  really  to  be  open  to  us.  Either  the  idiom 
was  due  to  the  document  of  the  Infancy,  which  Luke  incor- 
porated into  his  account,  or  to  his  effort  to  preserve  the 
spirit  and  color  of  an  oral  account  which  he  had  heard  either 
from  Mary,  or  from  some  one  to  whom  Mary  had  given  it. 

Professor  Ramsay  has  argued  with  considerable  cogency 
for  the  second  of  these  two  explanations.2  Professor 
Briggs  advocates  the  other  view.3  I  am  not  disposed  to 
quarrel  with  either  supposition,  for  in  either  case  we  have 
Luke's  attempt  to  preserve  in  his  Greek  the  spirit  of  that 
which  had  been  transmitted  to  him,  either  orally  or  in 

aCf.  note  on  Dr.  Briggs,  above  p.  131  u. 

2  Was  Christ  bo7-n  at  Bethlehem  ?  pp.  80,  seq. 

s  See  statement  quoted  on,  p.  99. 


THEORY  OF  EARLY  MYTHO-THEOLOGICAL  ORIGIN  1 37 

writing,  from  those  who  were  in  a  position  to  know  about 
the  circumstances  of  Jesus'  birth. 

There  can  be  little  question  that  in  the  time  of  Jesus, 
amid  all  the  warring  sects  into  which  Judaism  had  split 
up,  there  were  many  individuals  who  had  preserved  the 
spirit  of  Old  Testament  Judaism,  and  were  consequently 
identified  with  none  of  the  sects.  Of  these  Simeon  and 
Anna,  Zacharias  and  Elisabeth,  Joseph  and  Mary,  and 
John  the  Baptist  were  examples. 

Of  the  thoughts  and  feelings,  the  hopes  and  aspirations, 
of  this  group,  the  psalms  and  conversations  and  ideas  of 
Luke's  version  are  the  exact  and  wonderful  expression. 
The  psalms  were  the  utterances  of  Jewish  hearts  touched 
to  jubilation  by  the  accomplished  fulfillment  of  long 
cherished  hopes,  finding  utterance  in  forms  natural  to 
believers  grouped  about  the  cradle  of  the  infant  Messiah 
in  the  glad  days  before  the  dark  shadow  of  rejection  had 
dimmed  their  joy ;  but  utterly  impossible  afterwards.  The 
only  touch  of  sadness  is  in  the  sentence  of  Simeon,  and 
that  is  so  vague  as  to  show  that  it  is  merely  the  foreboding 
of  one  who  had  caught  more  clearly  than  most,  the  truth 
that  the  Messianic  career  was  not  to  be  one  unbroken 
triumph. 

The  document,  as  a  whole,  could  not  have  been  composed 
after  the  Crucifixion,  nor  even  after  Jesus  had  begun  His 
lessons  to  the  disciples  on  the  cross.  It  is  too  care-free, 
too  jubilant,  too  undisciplined,  too  free  from  perplexity. 
It  moves  entirely  within  the  sphere  of  Old  Testament 
ideas,  and  is  intensely  Hebraic  both  in  the  range  and  in 
the  quality  of  its  thought  and  feeling.  All  this  is  signifi- 
cant. Taking  into  consideration  Luke's  nationality  and 
history,  his  mode  of  understanding  and  interpreting  the 
Gospel  as  shown  in  his  other  writings,  the  conclusion 
seems  to  me  inevitable  not  only  that  Luke  could  not  have 


I38  GOSPEL   NARRATIVES 

invented  the  story,  but  that  he  could  not  have  obtained  it 
except  through  personal  relationship  with  some  one  who 
belonged  to  the  group  of  whose  faith  and  emotion  it 
was  the  characteristic  and  inimitable  expression.  No 
Gentile  coming  to  the  story  of  Christ's  life  through 
the  preaching  of  the  apostle  Paul  could  have  been 
brought  to  accept  a  tradition  or  document  of  a  nature  so 
utterly  foreign  to  his  own  favorite  modes  of  thought  and 
interpretation,  without  the  influence  of  some  person  of 
authority  who  could  enable  him  to  see  the  historic  bond 
of  unity  between  notions  so  primitive  and  Hebraic,  and  the 
expanded  universal  Christianity  of  which  he  himself  with 
Paul  was  the  exponent  and  advocate.  In  other  words,  we 
are  compelled,  by  the  minute  accuracy  of  the  description 
of  a  very  peculiar  and  individual  phase  of  early  Hebrew- 
Christian  thought,  to  the  belief  that  the  writer,  who  was  a 
Gentile  not  over  skillful  in  Hebrew  matters,  had  a  very 
close  and  intimate  fellowship  with  the  group  with  which 
the  story  is  concerned. 

The  second  specification,  which  I  urge  in  favor  of  the 
view  that  we  are  here  dealing  with  actual  history  and  not 
legend,  lies  in  the  evident  constraint  of  mind  under  which 
the  account  is  written.  I  mean  the  profound  reverence 
and  careful  reserve  with  which  the  writer  deals  with  the 
incidents  and  persons  of  his  narrative.  Those  who  main- 
tain the  hypothesis  which  we  are  now  contesting  hold 
that  the  Infancy  narrative  in  the  Gospels  is  an  irregular 
and  unauthorized  addition  to  the  evangelical  tradition, 
created  under  the  influence  of  the  mythic  or  legendary 
temper,  imagining  incidents  in  an  obscure  and  little  under- 
stood part  of  Christ's  life  of  which  He  Himself  never 
spoke.  It  happens  that  in  the  Apocryphal  books  of  the 
New  Testament,  we  have  undoubted  and  unquestioned 
specimens  of  this  kind  of  work. 


THEORY  OF  EARLY  MYTHO-THEOLOGICAL  ORIGIN  139 

We  know  that  these  writings  have  originated  in  the 
same  way  that  the  Gospel  narratives  must  have  originated, 
if  this  hypothesis  is  correct.  It  is  fair  to  ask,  whether 
there  is  such  kinship  between  the  two  sets  of  documents 
as  to  indicate  a  similarity  in  the  condition  from  which  they 
issued. 

Keim *  has  exerted  his  skill  to  the  utmost  to  exhibit 
resemblances  between  the  two  sets  of  narratives  concern- 
ing the  Infancy,  but  his  comparison  leaves  untouched  the 
fundamental  world-wide  difference  which  separates  them. 
And  this  difference  is  not  a  matter  of  literary  workmanship 
or  artistic  finish,  but  lies  wholly  in  the  region  of  moral 
moods  and  ideas.  The  Apocryphal  stories  are  many  of 
them  childish  and  silly,  but  they  are  worse  than  this — they 
are  fundamentally  irreverent.  They  fumble  with  coarse 
fingers  and  unwashen  hands,  with  sacrilegious  and  repul- 
sive intimacy  of  detail,  with  the  sacred  mystery.  I  need 
not  specify ;  the  text  is  within  reach  of  my  hand  as  I 
write,  and  every  reader  of  it  is  familiar  with  the  facts  which 
I  urge. 

In  contrast  with  this  clumsy  and  coarse  irreverence, 
Luke's  restraint  and  delicacy  are  both  beautiful  and  won- 
derful. He  handles  with  unerring  nicety  of  touch  a  story 
which  one  false  note  or  faintest  suggestion  of  coarseness 
would  utterly  destroy.  He  is  silent  where  unrestrained 
fancy  would  be  most  active  in  picturing.  He  draws  the 
outline  so  that  the  great  central  fact  stands  forth  bright 
and  clear,  but  refrains  from  filling  in  with  details  which 
curiosity  would  like  to  know.  Let  the  advocates  of  the 
legendary  hypothesis  explain  this  difference  between 
the  Apocryphal  and  Gospel  narratives,  for  explained  it 
must  be  before  any  balanced  mind  ought  to  be  able  to 
accept  the  theory  of  a  common  origin  for  the  two. 
1  L.  J.  N.  vol.  ii,  pp.  46,  seq.     See  quotations  above  p.  59. 


140  GOSPEL   NARRATIVES 

I  am  satisfied  that  it  can  be  explained,  but  not  in 
harmony  with  this  theory.  I  am  profoundly  convinced 
that  the  irreverence  which  mars  the  Apocryphal  stories 
was  due  to  a  surrender  of  the  obligation  of  truthfulness. 
The  writers  were  tampering  with  facts  which  ought  to 
have  been  absolutely  sacred;  in  yielding  the  obligation 
of  truth  to  the  spirit  of  inquisitiveness,  the  mind  lost  its 
tone,  became  blunted  in  its  spiritual  perceptions,  and 
naturally  puerile  and  irreverent  in  its  imaginings. 

Luke's  account  shows  the  noble  constraint  of  one  who 
knows  the  truth  and  holds  it  sacred,  and  is,  by  the  truth, 
made  free  from  the  lower  workings  of  his  own  mind.1  I 
am  persuaded  by  the  whole  moral  tone  of  the  story,  its 
restraint  and  delicacy,  its  sublime  purity,  that  it  came  by 
no  very  indirect  course  from  the  mother  herself. 

I  urge  in  conclusion,  as  evidence  of  the  presence  and 
working  of  the  historic  temper  in  this  account,  the  definite 
dating  of  the  occurrence  given  in  the  first  verses  of  the 
second  chapter.  Here  we  are  upon  debatable  ground.  Many 
scholars  maintain  that  this  statement  of  Luke's  is  a  colossal 
blunder,  and  a  demonstration  that  Luke  was  not  a  true 
historian. 2  On  this  subject,  no  scholar  can  afford  to  ignore 
the  work  of  New  Testament  scholars  in  this  field,  partic- 
ularly Prof.  Ramsay.  The  latter,  with  the  skill  and 
patience  of  the  scholar  born  and  trained,  has  gone  through 
Luke's  work,  and  exhibited  in  detail  his  mastery  of  facts  and 
materials  in  connection  with  the  Roman  Empire.  The 
general  issue  of  his  works  as  regards  Luke's  position  as 

1  Cf.  sentence  of  Fairbairn  concerning  the  miraculous  in  the  Gospel :  "  Is 
it  too  bold  an  inference  to  argue  that  the  very  magnitude  of  their  subject  had 
superseded  in  the  Evangelists  the  creative  activity  of  the  morbid  and 
mythical  imagination?  "      Phil.  Chr.  Rel.,  p.  337. 

*  On  this  see  Plummer,  Com.  on  Luke,  ii,  2;  also  Meyer,  Com.  on  Mark 
and  Luke,  vol.  ii,  p.  323  ;  also  Cam.  Bible  for  Schools,  Luke,  p.  62,  note. 


THEORY  OF  EARLY  MYTHO-THEOLOGICAL  ORIGIN  14I 

a  historian  is  not  doubtful,  and  whatever  Prof.  Ramsay  has 
to  say  about  Luke  is  to  be  heard  with  respect.  He  has 
written  an  elaborate  treatise J  in  explanation  of  the  account 
given  of  the  enrollment  which  brought  Joseph  and  Mary 
to  Bethlehem. 

Whether  his  argument  is  valid  in  every  particular,  I  am 
not  competent  to  judge.  The  argument  is  intricate  and 
complicated,  and  depends  upon  a  vast  amount  of  careful 
adjustment.  This  much,  however,  he  has  done — he  has 
brought  the  discussion  into  a  new  phase.  Luke  must 
henceforth  be  listened  to  with  thoughtful  regard.  It  is  no 
foregone  conclusion  that  he  has  blundered  in  statements 
concerning  the  methods  of  Roman  administration.  I  shall 
make  very  modest  requisition  upon  Professor  Ramsay's 
work.  I  simply  wish  to  take  this  ground,  which  is  cer- 
tainly reasonable  : 2  "It  is  quite  justifiable  and  reasonable, 
in  a  period  of  history  so  obscure  as  the  first  century,  to 
plead,  as  many  have  done,  that,  while  we  cannot  in  the 
present  dearth  of  information  solve  the  difficulty  com- 
pletely, we  are  obliged,  in  accordance  with  our  perception 
of  the  high  quality  of  the  author's  work  as  a  whole,  to 
accept  his  statement  in  certain  cases  where  he  is  entirely 
uncorroborated." 

While  I  do  not  claim  that  the  passage  in  question 
proves  that  Luke  was  a  great  historian,  for  its  accuracy  is 
disputed, 3  I  do  claim  that  it  proves  that  Luke  was  not  of 
the  legendary  temper.  His  whole  purpose  in  the  Gospel 
and  the  Acts  was  to  relate  the  history  of  Christ  and  early 
Christianity  to  its  Roman  setting.  The  purpose  is  utterly 
foreign  to  the  legendary  mood.  Vagueness  of  date  and 
localization  is  characteristic  of  all  mythical   productions. 

1  Was  Christ  born  at  Bethlehem  ? 

*  Ibid,  p.  7. 

3  See  note  C  at  end  of  volume — Prof.  Ramsay' s  Argument. 


142  GOSPEL   NARRATIVES 

The  definite  dating  of  the  incident,  with  the  names  of 
historic  characters  connected  therewith,  is  proof  that 
Luke  tried  at  least  to  write  history,  and  the  general 
character  of  his  work  is  demonstration  enough  that  on  the 
whole  he  was  successful. 

In  general,  therefore,  we  conclude  that  Lobstein's  elabo- 
rate and  ingenious  theory  breaks  to  pieces  on  the  facts ; 
that  the  Protevangel  is  neither  dogma  nor  legend,  but 
history,  authentic  in  its  origin,  and  well  and  soberly  nar- 
rated, although  in  the  forms  of  sacred  poetry. 


CHAPTER  VI 

THE   THEORY    OF    HEATHEN    INFLUENCE 

It  would  be  appropriate  to  place  at  the  head  of  this 
chapter  the  words  of  Lobstein  elsewhere  quoted,1  in 
which  he  definitely  rejects  Soltau's  elaborate  attempt  to 
account  for  the  Infancy  narratives  on  the  basis  of  heathen 
influence,  or  the  words  of  Harnack  in  which  he  takes  the 
same  position.2  It  would  seem  as  if  no  really  close  stu- 
dent of  the  Gospel  narratives,  occupying  a  position  of 
genuine  sympathy,  and  approaching  the  subject  from 
within,  could  imagine  for  a  moment,  that  heathen  anal- 
ogies have  had  the  slightest  influence  in  molding  the  two- 
fold story  of  the  Saviour's  birth  and  infancy,  as  we  now 
have  it. 

We  have  elsewhere  incidentally  made  answer  to  certain 
aspects  of  this  theory,  but  since  the  assertion  has  taken 
so  many  different  forms,  and  has  lately  reappeared  in  new 
dress,  we  now  devote  some  pages  to  a  discussion  of  the 
question  of  heathen  influence  in  general  upon  the  Infancy 
documents. 

Before  taking  up  the  specific  points  of  evidence,  it  is 
necessary  to  indicate  certain  general  principles  which 
must  govern  any  adequate  discussion  of  the  problem.  It 
is  taken  for  granted,  as  abundantly  proved  in  the  preced- 
ing pages,  that  the  literary  sources  of  the  two  narratives 
in  Matthew  and  Luke  were  composed  by  Jewish-Chris- 
tians.    It  is  not  necessary  to  repeat  the  arguments  here ; 

1  See  page  1 1 2. 

2 History  of  Dogma,  Eng.  Trans.,  vol.  i,  p.  ioo. 

143 


144  GOSPEL   NARRATIVES 

the   conclusion    rests    upon    undeniable   features  of  the 
narratives  themselves.1 

This,  of  course,  does  not  prove  that  the  main  incident 
narrated  therein  was  not  due  to  the  invention  of  a  non- 
Jewish  Christian,  although  the  nature  of  the  documents 
in  which  the  statement  is  found  reduces  the  probability 
of  that  to  very  small  dimensions.  But,  however  the 
statement  originated,  it  was  passed  upon,  accepted,  and 
formulated,  by  Jewish  Christians.  If  it  was  of  heathen 
origin,  we  have  an  undoubted  instance  of  a  heathen 
notion  passing  the  barriers  of  race,  beating  down  the 
guard  of  national  prejudice,  and  becoming  domesticated 
in  Jewish  minds.  It  is,  of  course,  perfectly  true  that  this 
would  by  no  means  be  without  a  parallel  in  history.  All 
extreme  theories  aside,  it  is  acknowledged  that  there  were 
Jews,  even  after  the  captivity  had  solidified  the  bulk  of 
the  nation  into  intense  loyalty  to  their  own  religion  and 
social  customs  and  no  less  intense  hatred  of  Gentiles, 
who  were  susceptible  to  foreign  influence,  and  inclined  to 
adopt  foreign  ways.  There  were  periods,  notably  that 
just  preceding  the  persecution  under  Antiochus  Epi- 
phanes,  when  the  influence  of  Hellenism  seemed  to  be 
gradually  permeating  the  Jewish  people.2  The  cruel  and 
tyrannical  methods  of  Antiochus  brought  about  not  only 
a  political  revolution,  in  which  foreign  power  was  banished 
for  a  century  from  Jewish  soil,  a  century  during  which 

1  So  admitted    by  most  writers  on  the  subject — Lobstein,  Keim,  Har- 
nack,  Cheyne,  etc. 

2  See  for  a  discussion  of  this  subject,  Rappoport's  continuation  of  Mas- 
pero's  Hist.  Egypt,  vol.  x,  cap  i.  Cf.  Schiirer,  J.  P.  T.  C,  First  Divi- 
sion i,  pp.  194,  f.  For  a  brief  but  accurate  and  sane  discussion  of  re- 
lationship between  foreign  religions  and  Judaism,  see  Kent :  Bab.  Per. 
and  Greek  Periods  in  History  of  Jewish  People  Series,  pt.  ii,  cap.  xiii  and 
xiv ;  also  for  Jewish  reaction  against  Hellenism,  p.  iii,  cap.  iii-vi.  See 
also  for  contination  of  this  struggle,  Riggs,  Mac.  and  Rom.  Period,  pt.  i, 
cap.  ii  and  iii.     (See  also  literature  in  these  books.) 


THE    THEORY  OF  HEATHEN  INFLUENCE         1 45 

decaying  Hellenism  was  gradually  giving  way  before  the 
advance  of  Rome,  but  also  a  social  revulsion,  which  to  a 
large  extent  broke  the  power  of  Hellenistic  ideas  and 
customs  over  Hebrew  minds.  The  vast  majority  of  the 
nation  was  a  unit  against  all  foreign  influence — the  Jew- 
ish inhabitants  of  large  towns  and  cities  in  Palestine  and 
Syria  were  wholly  separate  from  their  heathen  neighbors ; 
in  foreign  cities  they  also  formed  communities  by  them- 
selves. They  hated  the  heathen,  and  were  cordially  hated N 
by  them  in  return.  Social  intercourse,  and  even  business 
relations  were  established  only  under  great  restrictions. 
One  has  but  to  read  the  writings  of  the  period  to  feel  how 
intense  was  the  hatred  with  which  the  Jews  as  a  whole 
regarded  the  heathen,  with  whom  circumstances  had 
brought  them  into  most  unwelcome  contact.1  2  It  is 
necessary  simply  to  recall,  for  a  most  conspicuous  ex- 
ample, the  undying  hatred,  of  which  Herod  the  Great 
was  the  object,  principally  because  he  was  a  foreigner. 
No  nation  can  be  altogether  impervious  to  social  influ- 
ences from  foreign  nations,  but  the  Jewish  nation  came 
nearer  being  such  than  almost  any  other  except,  perhaps, 
the  Egyptian,  known  to  history. 

But  there  were  always  some  who  were  sympathetic 
toward  foreigners  and  accessible  to  foreign  influence. 
Even  Herod  had  Jewish  adherents.  The  most  remarkable 
instance  known  of  heathen  influence  over  Jewish  minds 
is  exhibited  in  that  mysterious  and  un- Jewish  sect,  the 
Essenes.  Their  system  seems  to  have  been  an  eclectic 
compound  of  Pharasaic  Judaism,  Pythagoreanism,  and 
Parsee  sun-worship.     As  to  how  they  came  into  exist- 

1  Cf.  e-  g-  the  remarks  of  Bissell :  Gen.  Intro,  to  Lange'  s  Com.  on  Apoc. 
(1901),  p.  49. 

2  On  relations  of  Jews  and  Gentiles  in  Palestine,  see  Edersheim,  L.  and 
T.  J.  M.,  chap,  vii,  especially  end  of  chapter.  Cf.  also  Com.  Apoc. 
(Lange's),  pp.  436,  ff. 

10 


I46  GOSPEL   NARRATIVES 

ence,  there  is  no  conclusive  evidence,  but  they  formed  a 
large  party  in  the  land.  They  were  cut  off  from  the 
Jews,  excluded  from  the  temple,  and  the  recipients  of  a 
generous  share  of  the  hatred  bestowed  by  the  Jews  upon 
the  heathen.  Looking  now  at  the  phenomena  presented 
by  the  Essenes,  and  indeed  at  the  entire  history  of  Hel- 
lenism on  Jewish  soil,  certain  facts  emerge  with  great 
distinctness. 
j-  Amalgamation  between  heathen  and  Jewish  notions,  in 
I  the  minds  either  of  heathens  or  Jews,  was  possible  only 
through  essential  modification  of  both  elements  in  the 
combination.  A  union  between  unchanged  Hebraism 
and  unmitigated  heathenism  was  impossible.  There 
must  be,  first,  a  movement  from  both  sides  toward  a 
common  center  before  any  union  could  take  place.  In 
so  far  as  a  Jew  adopted  heathen  customs  and  ideas,  he 
ceased,  in  the  strict  sense,  to  be  a  Jew.  To  a  Hebrew, 
brought  up  in  the  strict  fashion  of  his  fathers,  taught  in 
the  way  of  the  nation,  any  adoption  of  heathen  ways  was 
an  abomination.  The  Jew  must  become  modified  by  long 
contact  with  the  heathen,  as  in  the  Dispersion,  and,  also, 
it  would  seem,  by  a  breaking  down  of  inward  principles, 
before  any  adoption  of  heathen  ideas  would  be  possible. 
Moreover,  there  were,  historically,  movement  and  change 
on  the  other  side.  Heathenism  underwent  tremendous 
modifications  in  the  centuries  immediately  before  Christ. 
The  popular  myths  had  been  largely  abandoned  before 
the  Jews  became  Hellenized  to  any  extent.  Abstract 
philosophies  had  taken  the  place  of  crude  natural  myth- 
ologies. Heathenism  invaded  the  life  of  the  Jew,  not  in 
its  ancient  form,  but  in  the  social  customs,  dress,  literature, 
and  philosophies  of  modernized  Greeks,  and  their  imi- 
tators, the  cosmopolitan  politicians  and  soldiers  of  Rome. 
Philo,  in  whose  philosophical  system    Hellenism   and 


THE    THEORY  OF  HEATHEN  INFLUENCE         1 47 

Hebraism  were  united,  was  certainly  not  an  orthodox  Jew 
of  the  older  fashion,  but  he  certainly  did  not  accept  the 
crude  ancient  myths  of  the  heathen.  He  interpreted  Old 
Testament  history  allegorically  in  the  terms  of  Greek 
philosophy.  He  was  a  modified  Jew  influenced  by  a  modi- 
fied heathenism. 

The  Essenes  were  not  Jews  except  in  blood,  many  of 
the  distinctive  and  cardinal  Jewish  ideas  of  their  day  they 
rejected,  but,  even  so,  they  did  not  accept  the  ancient 
mythologies,  by  which  they  were  influenced,  unchanged. 
They  seemed  to  have  taken  into  their  system  revived 
Pythagoreanism,  such  as  we  find  in  the  communities  of 
Alexandria,  with  its  ascetic  cenobitism,  and  hatred  of 
blood  sacrifice,  and  combined  it  with  eastern  mysticism 
and  sun-worship,  the  latter  in  all  probability  purged  from 
much  that  was  historically  connected  with  it.  It  is  per- 
fectly clear,  therefore,  that  it  would  be  vain  to  search  history 
for  an  instance  of  a  devout  Jew  of  the  unmodified  Old 
Testament  type,  loyal  to  the  traditions  of  the  past,  and 
steadfast  in  adherence  to  the  principles  for  which  Israel 
had  always  stood,  who  at  the  same  time  admitted  heathen 
ideas  into  his  thought,  and  heathen  customs  into  his  life. 
He  must  in  large  measure  lose  his  distinctive  Jewish 
characteristics,  and  even  then  could  accept  heathen  notions 
only  after  they  had  been  greatly  changed  and  elevated. 

In  addition  to  this  law  of  development,  another  principle 
clearly  emerges  in  the  history  of  the  relationship  between 
heathenism  and  Judaism.  This  principle  is  that  in  order 
for  amalgamation  between  the  two  forms  of  faith  to  take 
place,  there  must  be  more  than  one  point  of  contact.  No 
single  unrelated  heathen  notion  would  be  likely  to  appear 
in  Hebrew  writings.  The  admission  of  heathen  elements 
into  a  Jew's  system  of  belief  would  result  in  the  radical 
modification  of  the  tone  and  atmosphere  of  his  thought 


148  GOSPEL  NARRATIVES 

The  admission  of  a  single  important  heathen  conception 
would  change  the  entire  contents  of  the  mind. 

And,  moreover,  ideas  come,  not  singly,  but  in  groups. 
One  idea  involves  another,  and  every  fundamental  notion 
really  involves  a  special  point  of  view  from  which  all  things 
appear  in  a  particular  light.  Nothing  in  the  world  could 
appear  just  the  same  to  a  man  who  had  shifted  in  the 
slightest  degree  from  the  Jewish  to  the  heathen  point  of 
view.  The  operation  of  this  law  of  mind  is  clearly  exhib- 
ited in  the  case  of  the  Essenes.  The  composite  nature  of 
their  system  is  clearly  discerned  under  analysis.  Their 
Jewish  affinities  were  shown  in  their  passion  for  ceremonial 
purity,  their  Pythagorean  tendencies  by  their  attitude  toward 
animal  sacrifice,  their  sun-worship  by  their  prayers  to  the 
sun  to  rise  and  their  adoration  of  him  on  his  rising,  their 
asceticism  by  their  attitude  toward  marriage,  their  con- 
nection with  the  Alexandrian  sects  by  their  settlement  in 
monastic  communities,  their  relationship  to  oriental  systems 
by  the  rigid  division  into  Brahman-like  castes  or  orders 
within  their  organization.  Taking  any  one  of  these  ruling 
ideas  it  will  be  seen  that  it  leads  to  other  related  ideas,  and 
is  one  element  in  a  system  both  of  thought  and  of  life. 
The  Essenes  represent  an  eclecticism  of  related  ideas  taken 
from  various  sources,  but  held  together  by  inherent  affin- 
ities into  a  more  or  less  coherent  system.  No  one  item 
of  any  one  of  the  systems  which  were  combined  in  their 
elaborate  and  intricate  mode  of  thought  and  life  was 
adopted  to  the  exclusion  of  all  others.  They  were  Jewish 
in  several  points,  Pythagorean  in  some  particulars,  Parsee 
in  not  a  few  items.  They  evidently  adopted  certain  lead- 
ing ideas  from  all  these  systems,  and  were  guided  by  a 
sure  instinct  to  allied  principles.  There  is  a  common 
ground  to  all  the  apparently  unrelated  and  motley  items  of 
their  system.     Their  fundamental  implicit  principle   was 


THE    THEORY  OF  HEATHEN  INFLUENCE         1 49 

the  inherent  impurity  of  matter,  and  with  this  their  sun- 
worship,  their  frequent  lustrations,  their  white  robes,  their 
spades  or  picks  with  which  to  cover  up  all  that  would 
offend  the  purity  of  the  sun,  their  abstention  from  mar- 
riage, their  separate  orders,  their  communal  monastic 
organization  all  agree.1 

Their  system  represents  the  natural  history  of  all  such 
attempts  to  import  ideas  from  one  faith  to  another.  Sys- 
tems of  faith  which  involve  ideas  of  God,  philosophies  of 
the  world,  ceremonial  rites  hang  together  and  form  systems 
— they  are  to  a  certain  extent  interdependent  and  consist- 
ent. Men  who  combine  religion  may  begin  with  one 
idea,  but  inevitably  find  themselves  in  the  coil  of  a  system. 

Now,  with  these  two  principles  in  view,  let  us  turn  to 
the  Infancy  narrative.  We  are  told  that  the  chief  incident 
therein  narrated  is  due  to  the  influence  of  heathen  anal- 
ogies, and  that  the  statement  was  framed  in  accordance 
with  the  stories  of  the  birth  of  mythical  heroes  from  the 
gods.  It  seems  impossible  that  those  who  hold  this  view 
realize  clearly  the  logical  implications  of  their  statements. 
For  it  means  that  positively  the  most  unsavory  element  in 
the  ancient  mythology  was  taken  over  bodily  into  Chris- 
tianity, wrought  into  the  fabric  of  the  New  Testament, 
incorporated  in  the  historic  creeds,  and  made  a  permanent 
element  of  Christian  faith.  It  means  that  this  disreputable 
rag  of  ancient. heathenism,  the  one  element  most  completely 
discredited  by  the  advance  of  enlightenment  among  the 
heathen  themselves,  rejected  and  covered  with  scorn  by 
the  philosophers,  ridiculed  in  the  theaters  amid  the  laughter 

1Conybeare  (  H.  B.  D.,  vol.  i,  p.  769,  Art.  Essene)  refers  to  the 
attitude  of  the  Essenes  toward  marriage  to  a  desire  for  Levitical  purity,  and 
cites  the  Mosaic  law  of  purification.  If  he  means  to  imply  that  the  motive 
of  that  law  was  an  ascetic  notion  of  the  inherent  uncleanness  of  the  sexual 
relation,  I  differ  emphatically.  The  law  in  question  was  sanitary  rather 
than  philosophic. 


150  GOSPEL  NARRATIVES 

of  the  mob,  was  adopted  by  Christians  and  made  a  part  of 
their  testimony  to  their  Lord.  If  the  miraculous  birth  is 
a  heathen  notion,  it  involves  that  degrading  conception  of 
a  Deity  holding  intimate  physical  relations  with  human 
beings  which  is  the  very  essence  of  heathen  idolatry,  the 
object  of  Jewish  hatred  and  scorn  since  the  days  of  the 
prophets.  If  the  virgin  birth  is  a  borrowed  heathen 
notion,  it  involves  nothing  less  than  absolute  apostasy  on 
the  part  of  those  who  formulated  and  accepted  it.  None 
but  a  renegade  Jew,  false  to  the  faith  of  his  fathers,  and 
infected  with  the  virus  of  the  lowest  heathenism,  could  have 
been  guilty  of  such  an  invention. 

The  adoption  of  the  categories  of  heathen  philosophy,  such 
as  we  find  in  Philo,  and  even  the  rites  of  sun-worship,  which 
we  see  among  the  Essenes,  are  matters  of  trifling  moment, 
compared  with  the  moral  lapse  into  coarse  heathenism 
involved  in  the  story  of  Christ's  birth  thus  interpreted. l 

But  the  bald  statement  of  the  logical  content  of  this 
affirmation  concerning  the  virgin  birth  brings  us  face  to 
face  with  a  tremendous  difficulty.  We  find  this  imported 
heathen  notion  imbedded  in  a  narrative  of  the  most 
intensely  Jewish  character.  I  do  not  urge  against  the 
theory,  as  I  reasonably  might,  the  moral  sublimity  of  the 
narrative,  the  unique  combination  of  simplicity  and  gran- 
deur which  lifts  the  story  into  a  place  by  itself,  a  whole 
heaven  above  all  the  stories  that  heathenism  in  its  best 
days  ever  produced,  but  simply  the  Jewish  character  of 
the  narrative.  The  story  in  both  its  forms  stands  close 
to  the  Old  Testament.  It  is  Hebraic  rather  than  Judaic. 
It  is  combined  with  prophecy  in  Matthew,  and  with  songs, 
which  are  but  glorified  Old  Testament  psalms,  in  Luke. 

1  For  a  clear  exhibition  of  the  mental  and  moral  atmosphere  in  which 
such  myths  nourish,  see  Curtiss's  Primitive  Semitic  Religion  To-day  (Revell, 
1902)  Chap.  IX.  It  is  not  pleasant  reading,  but  will  be  a  good  tonic  for 
those  who  are  inclined  to  this  theory. 


THE    THEORY  OF  HEATHEN  INFLUENCE  151 

Here  is  the  appropriate  place  to  emphasize  the  fact, 
incidentally  stated  elsewhere,  that  these  songs  are  vitally- 
connected  with  the  miraculous  birth.  Soltau  says  of  the 
early  document  embodied  in  the  narrative,  of  which  the 
songs  are  a  part :  "  It  described  in  a  genuinely  Jewish 
way  the  joy  manifested  by  the  oldest  generation  when  the 
Messiah  appeared."  But  the  exuberant,  heart-swelling 
joy  which  rings  in  those  incomparable  lyrics,  was  based 
upon  belief  in  a  signal  interference  of  God  in  human 
history  for  the  salvation  of  His  people,  comparable  with 
the  deliverance  from  Egypt,  or  the  destruction  of  Sen- 
nacherib. It  was  based  upon  the  appearance  of  one  who 
was  announced,  manifested,  certified  as  the  Messiah  from 
the  very  beginning  of  His  life.  It  could  not  be  based 
upon  the  birth  of  a  child  "unaccompanied  by  divine  warrant 
and  announcement  from  heaven  of  the  dignity  of  His 
person  and  mission.  Those  songs  could  not  have  reflected 
the  feelings  of  the  first  generation  concerning  the  appear- 
ance of  the  Messiah  had  they  not  known,  by  positive 
authority,  that  He  whom  they  welcomed  was  actually  the 
Messiah.  The  songs  can  be  accounted  for  only  by  refer- 
ence to  the  facts  with  which  they  are  bound  up  in  the 
narrative  ;  namely,  the  wonders  accompanying  and  desig- 
nating the  Messiah's  birth. 

But,  aside  from  this,  the  document  embodied  in  the 
narrative  could  have  been  written  by  genuine  Hebrews 
only.  The  writers  were  men  whose  minds  were  permeated 
with  the  spirit  as  well  as  the  language  and  style  of  their 
sacred  books ;  who  were  in  love  with  the  past  of  their 
nation ;  who  shared  its  hopes  and  ideals,  and  were  filled 
with  joy,  because,  in  the  birth  of  Jesus,  their  national 
longing  was  fulfilled.  If  the  hypothesis  which  we  are 
criticising  is  correct,  we  have  here  a  flagrant  violation  of 
the  principles  which  we  have  seen  in  operation  through 


152  GOSPEL   NARRATIVES 

the  entire  history  of  Hellenism  in  contact  with  the  Hebrews. 
We  have  the  unnatural  and  impossible  coalition  of  unmodi- 
fied Hebraism,  and  unchanged  heathenism.  We  have 
Jews  of  the  highest  type  adopting  mythological  notions 
most  vulgar  and  debased. 

In  addition,  there  is  a  clear  violation  of  the  second  prin- 
ciple. If  the  virgin  birth  is  a  heathen  notion,  it  stands 
alone  of  its  kind,  not  only  in  the  Infancy  narrative,  but 
also  in  the  New  Testament.  It  has  been  claimed,  and 
strongly  rebutted,  that  there  are  heathen  elements  in  the 
New  Testament ;  but  no  one,  so  far  as  I  know,  makes  the 
claim  that  there  is  in  the  New  Testament  any  trace  of 
mythological  notions  so  vulgar  and  debased  as  is  to  be 
found  in  this  statement  interpreted  as  an  adoption-  from 
heathenism.  Those  who  adopted  this  heathen  myth,  by  a 
strange  mental  caprice,  kept  their  Jewish  idea  of  the  spiritu- 
ality and  unity  and  exaltation  of  God.  They  were  worlds 
apart  from  the  heathen  attitude  of  mind,  save  in  this  one 
particular.  The  theory,  therefore,  as  ordinarily  stated,  logic- 
ally involves  the  violation  of  laws  of  general  force,  and 
wide  application  in  the  actual  history  of  the  process  of 
religious  amalgamation.  The  theory  exhibits  an  impos- 
sibility ;  namely,  a  genuine  Jew,  filled  with  the  spirit  of  his 
race,  lending  himself  to  the  adoption  of  a  vulgar  heathen 
notion,  which  really  involves  a  total  change  of  belief  con- 
cerning the  nature  of  God,  and  stopping  short  just  at  that 
point.  The  adoption  of  this  theory  for  the  explanation 
of  the  Infancy  story  demands  a  greater  credulity  than 
most  of  us  have  to  spare  on  a  single  point. 

In  view  of  these  considerations,  the  multiplication  of 
heathen  analogies 1  to  the  miraculous  birth  has  no  great 
force  to  a  discerning  mind. 

1  Such  as  those  collected  inHartland's  Legend  of  Perseus,  vol.  i,  and  by 
Usener  in  Ency.  Biblica,  Art.  Nativity. 


THE    THEORY   OF  HEATHEN  INFLUENCE         153 

Any  close  and  thoughtful  study  of  the  documents  in 
the  light  of  history  leads  to  the  conclusion  reached  by 
Prof.  Sanday,  that  those  who  reject  the  Infancy  narrative 
because  of  incidental  resemblances  to  heathen  myths  !  "  do 
not  sufficiently  consider  the  entire  difference  of  the  con- 
ditions under  which  the  Christian  tradition  was  promul- 
gated from  those  which  surrounded  the  creations  of 
mythopoeic  fancy.  The  Christian  tradition  belongs  to 
the  sphere,  not  of  myth,  but  of  history.  It  is  enshrined  in 
documents  near  in  date  to  the  facts,  and  in  which  the  line 
of  connection  between  the  record  and  the  fact  is  still 
traceable." 

We  may,  therefore,  unhesitatingly  reject  as  impossible 
the  theory  that  the  Gospel  story  of  the  miraculous  birth 
was  due  to  the  influence  of  popular  heathen  myths. 

The  whole  question,  however,  of  heathen  influence 
upon  the  Gospel  story  is  of  broader  application  and  of 
more  vital  import  than  thus  far  appears. 

It  touches  not  merely  upon  incidental  details  of  the 
narrative,  but  upon  the  central  affirmation  of  Christian 
faith  ;  namely,  the  incarnation  of  God  in  Jesus  Christ. 

It  is  startling  at  first  to  discover  that  incarnation,  the 
appearance  of  Deity  in  material,  and  especially  in  human 
form,  is  not  only  a  feature,  but  the  central  feature,  of 
almost  every  great  historic  religion.  It  is  the  common 
feature  of  systems  otherwise  widely  divergent.  "  Pagan 
theophany  is  one  of  the  most  interesting  and  significant 
of  studies  that  a  reverent  soul  can  pursue.  And  the  most 
significant  fact  in  connection  with  the  study  is  the  univer- 
sality of  the  belief  in  the  incarnation  of  the  Deity.  It  is 
one  of  those  "  always,  everywhere,  and  by  everybody," 
beliefs  that  have  the  highest  authority  that  can  possibly 
be  given  to  a  religious  conception — the  authority  of  a 
1  H.  B.  D.,  vol.  ii,  p.  647  a,  Art.  Jesus  Christ. 


154  GOSPEL   NARRATIVES 

universal  spiritual  conviction.  That  God  must  reveal 
Himself  to  His  creatures,  that  this  revelation  must  take 
visible  form,  that  the  presence  of  the  Deity  in  the  object 
or  being  that  embodies  Him  gives  superhuman  worth  and 
power,  and  demands  from  men  reverence  and  worship,  is 
the  conviction  that  underlies  all  religious  forms  and  cere- 
monies. It  does  not  detract  from  the  significance  of  the 
fact,  that  many  supposed  incarnations  are  absurd,  and 
many  low  and  base.  That  is  the  fault,  not  of  man's 
spiritual  intuition,  but  of  his  intellectual  and  moral  degen- 
eracy. He  believes  in  a  God  higher  and  holier  than 
himself,  whose  embodiment  in  the  most  abject  form 
renders  it  sacred  and  superior  to  himself.  The  fetich  of 
the  savage  African,  the  idols  of  the  heathen,  the  demi- 
gods of  pagan  Greece  and  Rome,  the  composite  creatures 
of  ancient  Assyria,  all  witness  to  the  belief  of  man  in  the 
possibility  and  fact  of  a  mysterious  relation  of  God  to  His 
creatures,  established  by  some  sort  of  embodiment.  And 
this  belief  is  just  as  strong  now  among  pagan  peoples  as 
it  ever  was.  In  India  it  takes  the  form  of  a  caste,  the 
Brahmins.  In  Japan  and  China,  it  incarnates  Buddha  in 
nine  forms,  and  anticipates  another  and  higher  incarnation 
of  him.  In  Thibet,  it  makes  a  perpetual  incarnation  of 
Buddha  in  the  Dalai  Lama  by  heredity.  Nowhere  can 
a  race  or  tribe  be  found  that  does  not  have  some  definite 
conviction  that  the  gods  come  down  to  earth  and  reveal 
themselves  to  men  in  visible  form."  ' 

From  the  universality  of  the  belief  in  incarnation  among 
the  heathen,  superficial  thought  has  hastily  jumped  to  the 
conclusion  that  Christianity  is  but  one  among  many  myth- 
ologies, having  no  greater  authority  than  any  of  the  ethnic 
religions.  This  ill-founded  conclusion  misses  the  truth  in 
two  directions : — 

1  From  an  address  by  the  Rev.  Isaac  O.  Best. 


THE    THEORY  OF  HEATHEN  INFLUENCE         155 

I.  It  fails  to  take  account  of  the  real  significance  of  those 
deep-seated  and  wide-spread  convictions  of  the  pagan 
world.  They  point  to  a  permanent  necessity  of  the  human 
heart.  They  voice  the  inappeasable  cry  of  the  universal 
human  spirit  for  the  manifestation  of  God  in  some  tangible 
and  intelligible  form. 

Job's  cry,  "Oh  that  I  knew  where  I  might  find  Him! 
that  I  might  come  even  to  His  seat,"  is  the  utterance  of 
that  same  longing  for  the  approachable,  the  intelligible, 
the  human  in  God  which  has  created  the  mythology  of 
incarnations  in  the  ethnic  faiths.  And  it  is  safe  to  say,  that 
this  universal  longing  evidences  one  of  those  fundamental 
and  permanent  qualities  of  the  human  soul  which  must 
always  condition  the  religious  life  in  all  its  manifestations. 
If  God  is  to  reveal  Himself  to  men  at  all,  He  must  do  so 
in  accordance  with  the  laws  of  the  human  mind,  and  must 
meet  the  spiritual  necessities  of  the  men  to  whom  He 
would  make  Himself  known.  Indeed,  a  profounder  grasp 
of  the  subject  compels  to  the  belief  that  those  fundamental 
necessities  of  the  human  constitution  are  of  His  own  crea- 
tion. They  must  in  some  sense  be  the  reflection  of  His 
nature.  Illingworth  has  said  somewhere  that  our  concep- 
tion of  God  is  anthropomorphic  because  our  own  being  is 
theomorphic.  He  has  implanted  such  longings  in  order 
to  meet  and  satisfy  them.  No  religion,  in  which  the  spirit- 
ual affections  have  scope,  is  possible  without  the  manifes- 
tation of  God  in  the  terms  of  humanity  to  reach  our  human 
need.  John  Fiske,  in  his  essay  on  the  everlasting  reality 
of  religion,1  lays  down  as  religion's  first  postulate  the 
Quasi-Human  God.  He  says,  among  other  things : 
"  Omitting  from  the  account  a  few  score  of  ingenious 
philosophers,  it  may  be  said  that  all  mankind,  the  wisest 
and  simplest,  have  taken  for  granted  the  existence  of  a 

1  Through  Nature  to  God,  Boston,  1899. 


156  GOSPEL  NARRATIVES 

Deity,  or  deities,  of  a  psychical  nature  more  or  less  similar 
to  that  of  humanity.  Such  a  postulate  has  formed  a  part 
of  all  human  thinking  from  primitive  ages  down  to  the 
present  time  ....  The  notion  of  a  kinship  between  God 
and  man  remains  and  is  rightly  felt  to  be  essential  to 
theism.  Take  away  from  our  notion  of  God  the  human 
element,  and  the  theism  instantly  vanishes ;  it  ceases  to  be 

a  notion  of  God Take  away  from  our  symbolic 

conception  of  God  the  human  element,  and  that  aspect  of 
theism,  which  has  from  the  outset  chiefly  interested  man- 
kind, is  gone." 1 

We  conclude,  therefore,  that  the  heathen  mythologies 
represent  a  human  necessity,  and  also  correspondingly  a 
condition  of  divine  revelation.  The  myths  are  not  alto- 
gether mythical.  They  have  a  basis  in  fact  in  the  inner 
constitution  of  the  human  soul. 

This  view  of  the  relationship  between  heathen  myths 
and  Christian  facts  also  misses  the  truth  by  a  failure  to 
realize  the  significance  of  the  central  fact  of  Christianity; 
namely,  the  person  of  Christ  Himself.  The  weakness  of 
the  heathen  faiths  consists,  not  so  much  in  the  principle 
of  incarnation  as  in  the  specific  applications  which  have 
been  made  of  it.  It  is  the  distinction  of  Christianity  that 
it  takes  this  universal  religious  category  and  makes  appli- 
cation of  it  to  the  supreme  spiritual  and  ethical  personality 
of  history.  This  fact,  at  least,  must  be  kept  in  mind 
throughout  the  entire  discussion.  If  the  categories  under 
which  Christ  is  interpreted  are  borrowed,  which  certainly  is 
not  proved,  Christ  Himself  is  not  borrowed.  Christ  Him- 
self is  fact,  incontestable,  primary,  and  original.  Chris- 
tianity rises  at  once  by  sheer  ascent  to  the  summit  of  orig- 

1  Cf.  van  Dyke,  Gospel  for  an  Age  of  Doubt,  Lect.  IV.  See  also  litera- 
ture quoted  in  Appendix  to  van  Dyke's  4th  lecture,  and  Illingworth,  Per- 
sonality, Human  and  Divine. 


THE    THEORY  OF  HEATHEN  INFLUENCE        1 57 

inality  by  the  assertion  that  the  incarnation  of  Deity,  for 
which  universal  man  has  longed  and  of  which  he  has  so 
persistently  dreamed,  was  actually  accomplished  in  Jesus 
of  Nazareth.  For,  while  the  assertion  is  contradicted  by 
the  external  circumstances  of  His  career,  by  the  reality,  the 
simplicity,  the  humility  of  His  human  life,  it  is  established, 
so  far  as  any  such  transcendant  assertion  can  be  estab- 
lished by  proof,  by  the  ethical  perfection,  the  spiritual  com- 
pleteness, and  the  historic  supremacy  of  Jesus. 

The  assertion  that  Christianity  is  a  plagiarized  and  mas- 
querading heathenism,  is  absurd  in  view  of  the  fact  that  at 
precisely  the  vital  point— the  character  of  the  personality 
upon  whom  the  claim  of  authority  depends — Christianity 
is  conceded  to  be  without  a  measurably  successful  com- 
petitor among  heathen  faiths. 

And,  be  it  remembered,  this  is  really  the  essential  point 
at  issue.  Heathenism  alleges  that  in  her  great  men  God 
has  in  some  sense  been  present.  The  proof  of  such  an 
allegation  must  rest  primarily  upon  the  character  of  the 
person  concerning  whom  such  statements  are  made.  It 
seems  to  me  perfectly  evident  that  the  heathen  religions 
do  not  affirm  concerning  their  great  leaders  and  prophets 
all  that  Christianity  claims  for  Christ,1  but  even  if  they  did, 
the  proof  must  be  framed  from  the  life  history  of  the  per- 
son in  question.  Christ  is  Christianity's  challenge  to  the 
world.  Christ  is  the  basis  and  the  proof  for  every  asser- 
tion which  we  make  concerning  the  nature  of  God  and  His 
relationship  to  humanity.  The  supreme  fact  of  Christian- 
ity is  Christ.  Our  interpretation  of  Him  in  terms  of  meta- 
physics is  a  secondary  and  derivative  question.  We  may 
have  inherited  or  borrowed  our  metaphysics, — the  ques- 
tion,  however,   is,  have   we   inherited  or   borrowed   the 

^ee  Cam.  Theol.  Essays  (Mac,  1905)  p.  430;  also  Fairbairn,  Phil.  Ch. 
Rel.,  258-288,  311-568. 


158  GOSPEL  NARRATIVES 

person  whom  we  thus  interpret  ?  If  Christ  Himself  is 
original,  unique,  supreme,  our  contention  is  established, 
and  we  may  look  with  comparative  indifference  upon 
attempts  to  criticise  our  modes  of  apprehending  and  inter- 
preting Him. 

Considerations  of  this  character  must  be  allowed  due 
weight  in  all  discussions  of  the  analogous  accounts  of 
miraculous  births  found  in  other  religions.  Any  number 
of  such  analogies  cannot  prove  that  the  story  found  in  the 
Christian  documents  is  copied  and  therefore  mythical.  If 
the  idea  of  an  exceptional  mode  of  entrance  into  the  world 
offers  any  real  assistance  in  accounting  for  the  career  of 
an  exceptional  personality,  we  should  naturally  expect 
such  an  idea  to  be  connected  with  the  advent  of  many 
great  men  who  have  been  objects  of  wonder  and  admira- 
tion to  their  own  and  succeeding  generations. 

That  it  does  render  aid  to  the  mind  in  understanding 
an  exceptional  character,  is  no  final  argument  against 
its  historic  truthfulness.  Its  fitness  as  an  element  in  the 
explanation  of  an  exceptional  Person  does  not  prove  that 
it  was  invented  to  explain  Him.  If  the  idea  of  an  unusual 
mode  of  birth  in  which  the  agency  of  God  is  more  than 
ordinarily  manifest  has  any  value  whatsoever,  its  appearance 
in  myth  is  almost  certain.  But  the  appearance  in  myth  is 
no  conclusive  evidence  that  it  has  not  and  may  not  appear 
in  history.  The  belief  that  God  is  in  a  special  sense  the 
giver  of  great  and  good  men  to  the  race  is  certainly  a 
rational  one.  Whether  in  any  given  case  He  has  indicated, 
by  prophetic  promise  or  otherwise,  such  a  special  gift,  is  a 
question,  primarily,  of  evidence.  It  is  not  a  priori  unreason- 
able that  a  character  of  special  importance  to  the  life  of 
man  should  be  from  birth  or  before  birth  designated  as 
God's  messenger.  The  sons  of  promise  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, and  John  the  Baptist  in  the  New,  come  under  this 


THE    THEORY  OF  HEATHEN  INFLUENCE         1 59 

description.  It  is,  as  I  have  said,  a  matter  of  evidence, 
and  one  element  in  that  evidence  must  be  the  congruity 
between  what  is  affirmed  concerning  the  birth  of  the  per- 
son, and  the  character  and  life  of  the  person.  The  unique- 
ness of  Jesus1  gives  force  to  the  affirmation  which  we 
make  concerning  the  uniqueness  of  His  birth.  The  mirac- 
ulous birth  by  itself  does  not  constitute  a  complete 
evidence  of  Christianity.  It  does  not  logically  prove  that 
Christ  was  divine — it  merely  proves  that  He  was  a  super- 
naturally-begotten  man.  It  was  a  distinct  intimation 
(and  herein  its  value  lay)  to  those  who  knew  of  it,  that  an 
exceptional  personality  was  about  to  enter  the  world. 
It  was  the  signal  of  a  new  cycle  of  events.  How  abso- 
lutely exceptional  that  personality  was,  how  wondrously 
new  that  cycle  of  events  was  to  be,  was  left  to  the  revela- 
tion and  unfolding  of  them  to  show.  Viewed  without  the 
life  of  Christ,  the  birth  was  a  symbol  of  the  fulfillment  of 
hopes,  and  the  beginning  of  a  new  era,  in  the  actual  coming 
of  God's  promised  messenger.  Seen  in  connection  with 
the  life  which  follows,  it  becomes  simply  a  congruous  item 
in  the  life  of  the  Incarnate  Son  of  God.  The  following 
sober  and  thoughtful  words  exactly  express  the  truth  which 
we  have  been  trying  to  utter : — 2 

"  It  would,  we  feel,  be  not  unbecoming  for  such  a  mo- 
mentous entrance  into  human  life  as  that  of  the  Son  of 
God,  that  the  mode  of  it  should  be  different  from  that  of 
other  men's  birth.  This  is  not  the  place  to  argue  for  the 
historical  truth  of  the  virgin  birth  of  Christ ;  but  if  it  be 
assumed  that  Jesus  Christ  is  what  St.  Paul  thought  Him  to 
be,  then  we  can  at  least  say  with  St.  Ambrose,  "  Talis 
decet  partus  Deum."  No  one  ever  believed  Jesus  to  be 
divine  on  the  ground  that  He  was  born  of  a  virgin ;  and 

1  See  Chapter  viii. 

*  Cf.  also  Ottley,  H.  B.  D.,  vol.  ii,  p.  460,  Art.  Incar. 


l6o  GOSPEL   NARRATIVES 

it  is  most  unlikely  that  He  was  first  imagined  to  be  born 
of  a  virgin  because  He  was  believed  to  be  divine.  But,  if 
He  really  was  divine,  such  a  manner  of  birth  was  not 
unsuitable.  It  would  not  be  a  breach  of  natural  laws  in 
the  same  sense  as  if  an  ordinary  man  were  to  be  so  born. 
For  a  given  man,  who  was  nothing  more  than  man,  to  be 
an  exception  to  his  kind  in  a  matter  of  this  sort  would  be 
a  miracle  such  as  perhaps  no  evidence  could  induce  us  to 
accept.  But  in  this  case  the  person  to  be  born,  unlike  His 
brother-men,  is  on  the  hypothesis,  already,  an  existing 
person  before  His  conception,  and  that  person  is  divine. 
What  wonder  if,  the  conditions  being  dissimilar,  the  events 
should  be  dissimilar  likewise !  We  cannot  say  that  God 
could  not  have  been  incarnate  otherwise ;  but  we  can  at 
least  say  that  if  He  came  in  this  manner,  He  gave  a  signifi- 
cant token  of  the  new  beginning  which  His  birth  effected 
in  and  for  the  race  of  men.  It  became  Him."  (Mason, 
Cam.  Theol.  Essays,  p.  464,5.) 

Having  now  considered  certain  general  principles  which 
must  enter  the  discussion,  let  us  turn  to  some  of  the  spe- 
cific cases  in  which  pagan  influences  have  been  alleged. 
We  have  already  dismissed,  as  out  of  the  question,  the  so- 
called  "analogies"  afforded  by  the  vulgar  myths  of 
Greece  and  Rome.  We  may  begin  with  the  Buddhist 
legends.  As  the  basis  of  this  discussion,  I  shall  make 
special  use  of  an  article  on  Buddhism  and  Christianity  by 
Prof.  T.  W.  Rhys-Davids  in  the  International  Quarterly 
for  March-June,  1903,  which  states  the  essential  facts  in 
form  convenient  for  reference. 

The  writer  brings  together  the  most  striking  analogies 
between  the  teaching-  of  the  Buddhist  documents  and  the 
New  Testament,  and  also  certain  resemblances  in  details 
between  the  life  of  Christ  and  that  of  the  Buddha.  Among 
these  is  the  story  of  the  miraculous  birth.     It  is  perfectly 


THE    THEORY  OF  HEATHEN    INFLUENCE         l6l 

evident  that  Prof.  Rhys-Davids  is  not  greatly  impressed 
with  the  resemblance  in  the  two  stories  so  far  as  the  his- 
torical episodes  are  concerned.  He  says  on  the  question 
of  borrowing  :  "  Surely  this  general  similarity  in  the  pre- 
vious intellectual  conditions  must  have  been,  after  all,  the 
dominant  factor  in  the  general  similarity,  so  far  as  it  goes, 
of  the  ethical  result.  Why,  then,  in  strange  forgetfulness 
of  the  well-known  law  of  parsimony,  seek  farther  for  a 
cause  that  is  not  required,  and  postulate  a  borrowing  for 
which  there  is  no  historical  evidence?  No  one  would 
even  suggest  for  a  moment  that  any  borrowing  is  possible 
in  the  case  of  early  Buddhism.  Why  suggest  that  in  the 
case  of  early  Christianity  such  borrowing  is  not  only 
possible  but  probable  ? 

The  case  of  the  episodes  is  very  different — so  different 
at  least,  that  it  is  best  to  discuss  it  always  apart  from  the 
question  of  ethics.  In  the  ethics,  we  find  really  certain 
deep-reaching  similarities  on  points  of  essential  moment. 
In  the  episodes,  the  resemblances  are  very  much  on  the 
surface.  If  the  suggestion  be  that  there  has  been  imita- 
tion, the  word  "  resemblance  "  seems  out  of  place.  The 
latter  should  rather  be  described  as  a  travesty  or  a  mockery 
of  the  earlier. 

'  And  the  Jesuit  missionary  would  not  be  so  far  wrong 
when  he  thought  of  the  Thibetans  that  the  Devil  had  deceived 
themwith  a  blasphemous  imitation  of  the  religion  of  Christ." 

We  have  but  to  look  at  the  two  narratives  side  by  side 
to  see  at  once  the  utter  impossibility  of  imitation,  at  least 
on  the  part  of  the  Christian  writers.  Taking  for  granted, 
what  is  not  proved  nor  even  shown  to  be  probable,  that 
there  was  communication  between  adherents  of  the  two 
faiths,  imitation  is  out  of  the  question.1 

1  I  have  been  unable  to  examine  A.  J.  Edmund's  book  (Buddhists  and 
Christian  Gospels,  for  sale  by  Open  Court  Pub.    Co.,  1905),  but  from  a 
11 


1 62  GOSPEL   NARRATIVES 

In  a  comparatively  late  document  of  Buddhism  (the 
Maha-Vastu),  which  is  to  be  dated  somewhat  earlier  than 
the  Christian  era,  there  is  an  account  of  the  birth  of  the 
Buddha.1  "  His  mother  before  the  conception  retires  to 
keep  the  fast,  and  in  complete  chastity  sleeps  surrounded 
by  her  women.  Her  husband  is  not  there.  As  she  sleeps 
she  dreams  a  dream  :  it  seems  as  if  a  white  elephant  enters 
her  side.  This  is  the  conception."  Is  there  any  one  of 
sound  mind  and  the  most  rudimentary  literary  sense  who 
can  believe  that  this  puerile  legend,  with  its  dream  of  the 
sacred  white  elephant,  is  the  source  of  the  sublime  nar- 
ratives of  the  Gospel  ?  Besides,  as  Prof.  Rhys-Davids 
points  out,  there  is  no  suggestion  that  the  mother  was  a 
virgin  at  the  time,  nor  of  any  connection  with  prophecy. 

Review  (Princeton  R.,  Apr.,  1906)  I  take  the  following  quotation:  "I 
hold  to  the  independent  origin  of  Buddhist  and  Christian  Scriptures,  pro- 
vided we  mean  their  fundamental  documents.  The  Epistles  of  Paul,  the 
Gospel  of  Mark,  and  the  Logia-source,  are  dependent  for  their  primary 
inspiration  upon  the  life  and  deeds  of  Jesus ;  and  secondly,  upon  the  Old 
Testament  oracles,  the  current  belief  of  the  times  as  embodied  in  works 
like  Enoch,  and  the  personal  convictions  of  earnest  men  like  Paul,  Peter, 
and  Matthew.  But  when  we  come  to  late  documents  such  as  Luke,  John, 
and  the  canonical  First  Gospel  the  case  is  different.  This  is  now  admitted 
by  all  historical  critics,  and  the  most  that  I  advance  in  this  direction  is  the 
possibility  of  the  Gentile  Gospel  of  Luke,  in  certain  traits  extraneous  to  the 
Synoptic  narrative  having  been  tinged  by  the  Gotama  Epic." 

In  this  careful  and  modest  statement  (in  striking  contrast  with  many 
extravagant  claims  in  this  connection)  we  note  that  if  our  contention  be  at 
all  successful  concerning  the  age  of  the  Infancy  documents,  the  possibility 
of  Buddhist  influence  goes  utterly  by  the  board.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the 
Infancy  narratives  stand  among  the  most  primitive  portions  of  the  New 
Testament  and  exhibit  fewer  touches  of  the  later  ideas  of  the  disciples 
than  almost  any  others.  Belonging  to  the  primitive  ground  work  of  the 
written  Gospel  their  connection  with  Buddhist  documents  or  derivation  from 
them  becomes  an  unbelievable  hypothesis. 

1  Cf.  Rhys-Davids'  Buddhist  Birth  Stoi-ies.  Hopkins,  Religions  0/  India 
(Ginn  &  Co.,  1895),  p.  340,  holds  that  quite  probably  all  the  birth  stories 
are  later  than  our  era.     This  is  at  least  open,  to  question. 


THE    THEORY  OF  HEATHEN  INFLUENCE        1 63 

These  two  suggestions  are  absolutely  destructive  of  the 
theory  of  imitation  on  the  part  of  the  Christian  writers. 
There  is  no  way  to  account  for  the  invention  of  a  virgin 
birth  l  in  contradistinction  to  a  miraculous  birth  which  is 
claimed  for  Gotama.  Moreover,  it  is  inconceivable  that  a 
Christian  writer,  finding  the  statement  of  Gotama's  birth 
in  Buddhist  writings,  or  hearing  of  it  from  the  lips  of 
Buddhist  missionaries,  should,  at  the  same  time,  be  acces- 
sible enough  to  heathen  notions  to  accept  it,  and  Jewish 
enough  to  strip  it  of  all  heathen  accessories,  and  lift  it  up 
into  connection  with  prophecy  in  order  to  clothe  it  with 
purely  Jewish  forms  of  thought.  Moreover,  the  form  in 
which  the  story  appears  in  the  Maha-Vastu  (that  is  a 
miraculous  conception  on  the  part  of  a  married  woman) 
was  far  better  adapted  for  acceptance  and  defense  than  the 
story  of  a  miraculous  conception  on  the  part  of  a  virgin 
as  told  in  the  Gospels.2 

There  is  no  adequate  motive  for  the  change.  There  are 
still  other  reasons  for  rejecting  this  theory.  The  natural 
history  of  the  miraculous  birth  of  Gotama,  the  Buddha,  is 
clearly  exhibited  in  the  documents. 

As  has  already  been  said,  "  the  Buddhist  legend  is  not 
found  in  the  oldest  documents.  It  occurs  neither  in  the 
chapter  on  '  Wonders  and  Marvels  '  (namely,  at  the  birth 
of  a  Buddha)  in  the  Majjhima-nikayas,  nor  in  the  sublime 
legend  in  the  Digha-nikaya.  These  two  passages  agree, 
nearly  word  for  word,  but  in  the  '  Wonders  and  Marvels,' 

1  That  the  Prophecy,  Isa.  vii,  14,  did  not  create  the  idea,  see  chap.  ii. 

2  Some  justification  for  this  statement  may  be  deemed  necessary.  In  the 
case  of  a  married  woman,  of  whom  it  is  claimed  that  her  child  was  miracu- 
lously conceived,  those  who  disbelieve  the  miracle  would  simply  charge 
both  husband  and  wife  of  conspiracy  to  defraud.  The  chastity  of  the 
woman  would  not  be  called  in  question.  The  attitude  of  the  Jews  toward 
the  miraculous  birth  of  Christ,  as  shown  in  the  Pantheras  story,  is  evidence 
enough  of  the  difficulty  involved  in  the  New  Testament  narrative. 


164  GOSPEL   NARRATIVES 

probably  the  later  of  the  two,  a  line  or  two  is  added  to 
the  effect,  '  When  a  Wisdom-being  (Bodesat,  that  is,  a 
being  who  will  become  a  Buddha)  has  descended  into  its 
mother's  womb  no  thought  of  lust  as  regards  men  arises 
to  her,  neither  can  she  be  affected,  in  the  way  of  lustful 
thought,  by  any  man.'  "  Prof.  Rhys-Davids  adds  :  "  This 
passage,  thus  introduced,  may  be  the  germ  of  the  later 
development."  Long  after  this  comes  the  second  step 
in  the  process ;  namely,  the  story  of  the  Maha-Vastu. 
Then  later  yet  the  legend  grows  complete,  reaching  even 
to  the  description  of  the  mother  of  a  Buddha  as  the 
Divine  Virgin — a  suggestion  which  was  not  received  with 
any  great  favor.  Now  in  the  probable  natural  history  of 
the  Buddha  legend,  from  the  idea  that  the  mother  of  the 
Buddha  must  be  free  from  earthly  emotions,  to  the  full 
grown  notion  that  she  must  be  a  virgin  and  the  mother 
of  no  other  child,  the  psychological  connection  at  least  is 
clear.  But  the  origin  of  the  Gospel  story,  if  indeed  it  be 
a  legend,  must  have  been  altogether  different.  The  ideas 
which  are  embodied  in  the  Buddhist  legend  would  not 
have  appealed  to  a  Jew.  He  had  no  such  ascetic  view  of 
the  marriage  relation.1  The  pure  love  of  a  wife  for  her 
husband  could  have  in  it  for  the  Jewish  mind  no  touch  of 
any  emotion  unworthy  of  the  mother  of  the  Messiah. 

To  the  Jew  there  was  no  superiority  in  the  state  of 
celibacy.  In  the  Gospel  narrative  itself  there  is  clear 
indication  that  the  authors  considered  Mary  in  reality  the 
wife  of  Joseph,  and  the  mother  of  his  children.  To  the 
genuine  Jew  there  could  have  been  no  shock,  so  far  as 
his  ideas  of  the  sacredness  of  marriage  were  concerned,  in 
the  thought  that  the  Messiah  was  born  as  other  men.  The 
virgin  birth   must   have  made  its  appeal  to  him   at   an 

1  Barring  the  Essenes  who  were  isolated  and  despised,  asceticism  among 
the  Jews  was  a  negligible  factor. 


THE    THEORY  OF  HEATHEN  INFLUENCE         1 65 

entirely  different  angle,  by  making  the  divine  agency  in 
the  birth  of  the  Messiah  more  clearly  manifest. 

While  Prof.  Rhys-Davids  rejects  the  superficial  and 
unfounded  theory  of  imitation,  at  the  same  time  he  affirms 
an  analogy  between  two  narratives,  which  it  is  worth  our 
while  to  study  a  little  more  closely. 

"  As  we  have  already  seen,  the  Buddhist  legend  is  not 
found  in  the  oldest  documents.  It  is  a  latter  development, 
under  the  influence  of  two  great  "  ideals "  current  in 
India  when  Buddhism  arose,  the  ideal  of  the  Wise-man 
of  Old,  the  Seer  (the  Buddha  or  the  Rishi),  and  the  ideal 
of  the  King  of  the  Golden  Age  (the  Cakkavatin).  Both 
were  beautiful  conceptions,  and  with  the  latter  were 
mingled  the  ancient  glories  of  the  sun  god.  The  union 
of  these  two  was  to  the  early  Buddhist  what  the  union  of 
the  two  ideas  of  the  Messiah  and  the  Logos  was  to  the 
early  Christians.  .  .  And  it  is  the  Buddha-Cakkavatti 
circle  of  ideas  in  the  one  case,  just  as  it  is  the  Messiah- 
Logos  circle  of  ideas  in  the  other,  that  has  had  a  larger 
influence  than  the  real  facts  in  formulating  the  views  held 
by  the  early  disciples  as  to  the  person  of  their  Master." 

The  kernel  of  this  discussion  is  to  be  found  in  the  last 
sentence  quoted.  The  vital  point  at  issue  is  not  the 
reality  of  the  analogy,  that  may  be  admitted  at  once  with- 
out question,  but  as  to  what  lies  back  of  the  analogy.  We 
may  admit  that  the  union  of  the  two  ideas  of  the  wise 
man  of  Old  and  King  of  the  Golden  Age  was  to  the 
early  Buddhist  what  the  union  of  the  two  ideas  of  the 
Messiah  and  the  Logos  was  to  the  early  Christians,  but 
that  in  the  case  of  Christianity  the  Messiah-Logos  circle 
of  ideas  has  had  a  larger  influence  than  the  real  facts  in 
formulating  the  views  held  by  the  early  disciples  as  to 
the  person  of  their  Master,  we  emphatically  deny  and  are 
prepared  to   show  the    reason  why.     The  parallel  thus 


1 66  GOSPEL   NARRATIVES 

drawn  breaks  down  in  three  essential  particulars.  In  the 
first  place,  there  is  a  break  in  historic  continuity  between 
Gotama  and  the  opinions  held  concerning  him  by  his  dis- 
ciples, which  puts  these  at  once  into  the  realms  of  second- 
ary judgments.  Gotama,  so  far  as  the  personality  of  God 
is  concerned,  was  an  atheist.  He  taught  a  system  of 
ethics  on  a  purely  materialistic  basis.  Had  his  teachings 
been  literally  followed,  his  disciples  would  have  been 
disbelievers  in  the  unseen  world  and  divine  reality.  There 
is,  therefore,  an  irreducible  contradiction  between  the 
teaching  of  Gotama,  who  repudiates  the  idea  of  Deity  and 
the  teaching  of  his  disciples,  which  makes  him  an  incar- 
nation of  Deity.  Gotama  was  deified  in  spite  of  himself. 
One  might  as  consistently  make  a  Deity  of  Auguste 
Comte.  As  has  been  well  said,  this  process  of  apotheo- 
sis applied  to  Gotama  is  a  striking  exhibition  of  the 
inherent  religiousness  of  men,  but  it  destroys  completely 
the  authority  of  the  Buddha  category  as  applied  to 
Gotama.1  It  is  possible,  of  co.urse,  that  a  man  may  be  a 
reflection  of  the  divine  without  being  conscious  of  it,  but 
he  could  not  be  an  incarnation  of  the  Deity  even  in  most 
extreme  humiliation  without  being  conscious  of  it. 

The  same  person  could  not  be  at  once  a  god  and  an 
atheist.  Gotama  could  not  have  known  that  he  was  super- 
naturally  conceived,  because  he  did  not  believe  in  the 
supernatural  at  all. 

This  general  argument  does  not  hold  against  Christian- 
ity.    We  have  undoubted  authority  for  the  statement  that 

1  Fairbairn  says  (Phil.  Ch.  Rel.  p.  243):  "  His  people  could  not  stand 
where  he  did ;  his  philosophy  could  not  become  a  religion  without  a  person 
to  be  worshiped,  and  they,  by  a  sublime  inconsistency  of  logic,  rose  in  the 
region  of  the  imagination  and  the  heart  to  a  higher  consistency  and  deified 
the  denier  of  the  divine."  Fairbairn  denies  the  title  atheist  to  Gotama. 
Undoubtedly,  on  the  ethical  side,  his  consciousness  was  theistic,  but  for  him 
a  personal  God  had  no  existence. 


THE    THEORY  OF  HEATHEN  INFLUENCE         l6j 

Jesus  not  only  believed  in  God,  but  also  in  a  special  sense 
the  messenger  and  revealer  of  God.  Leaving  entirely 
aside  the  testimony  of  John  on  the  basis  of  the  Synoptics, 
we  are  compelled  to  the  belief  that  Jesus  claimed  to  be  the 
Messiah  of  His  people  and  the  revealer  of  God.  We  have 
a  basis,  therefore,  in  our  knowledge  of  the  self-conscious- 
ness of  Jesus  for  our  faith  in  His  Messiahship.  There  is 
no  contradiction  involved  in  attributing  to  Jesus  a  super- 
human dignity  and  wisdom ;  for  He  at  least  believed  in  a 
wisdom  and  power  greater  than  man. 

It  has  been  urged  against  the  historicity  of  the  birth 
narratives  that  Jesus  Himself  does  not  confirm  them,  and 
therefore,  presumably,  was  not  acquainted  with  the  facts. 
This  argument  is  based  almost  entirely  upon  His  silence, 
which  is  not  at  all  conclusive.  The  only  sentence  which 
can  be  quoted  against  it  is  a  purely  conventional  remark 
about  His  home. 

But  the  parallel  is  broken  in  another  particular.  The 
question  of  time  is  an  important  one.  We  have  already 
noticed  that  the  Buddhist  birth  legends  are  comparatively 
late,  arising  long  after  the  first  documents  of  Buddhism 
were  promulgated,  and  gradually  developing  through 
long  periods  of  time.  In  forming  his  parallel  Prof. 
Rhys-Davids  makes  this  statement  concerning  the  birth 
narratives  of  the  Gospels  :  "  As  is  well  known,  the  doctrine 
of  the  immaculate  conception  l  is  not  referred  to  in  the 
oldest  of  the  Christian  documents,  the  epistles  attributed 
to  the  original  apostles  and  to  Paul,  nor  in  the  oldest  of 
the  Gospels,  that  according  to  Mark." 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  sources  of  the  Infancy  narratives 
of  Matthew  and  Luke  are  among  the  oldest  documents 
of  the  New  Testament,  but  taking  the  statement  just  as  it 

1 A  misstatement  for  the  miraculous  conception  which  is  amazingly  prev- 
alent in  discussions  of  this  subject. 


1 68  GOSPEL   NARRATIVES 

stands  the  parallel  with  the  Buddhist  legends  breaks  down. 
The  lapse  of  time  between  the  earliest  and  latest  of  the 
Christian  documents  on  any  supposition  that  can  plausibly 
be  defended,  is  infinitesimal  compared  with  the  time  con- 
sumed in  the  development  of  the  Buddhist  legends.  The 
entire  space  of  time  covered  by  the  history  of  the  formation 
of  the  New  Testament  documents  could  be  spanned  by 
one  human  life,  while  the  period  of  the  Buddhist  stories 
is  measured  by  ages  rather  than  years. 1 

If  anything  more  is  needed  to  exhibit  the  impossibility 
of  accounting  for  the  Infancy  narratives  by  any  known 
operation  of  the  mythopceic  tendency,  it  would  be  furnished 
by  this  interesting  historic  comparison. 
.  The  parallel  breaks  still  more  completely  at  another 
point,  in  the  actual  historic  results  of  the  two  systems. 
Gotama  himself  was  a  reformer  and  philanthropist,  and, 
compared  with  the  teachings  which  he  displaced,  he  rep- 
resents a  great  advance.  But  his  teaching,  that  misery  is 
coextensive  with  existence,  and  that  the  only  attainable 
bliss  lies  in  cessation  of  being,  resulted  practically  in 
enchaining  in  moral  and  spiritual  hopelessness  the  millions 
brought  under  his  sway. 

The  Buddha,  typified  in  the  cold,  impassive  figure  of 
stone  with  calm,  expressionless  features,  sitting  in  endless 
contemplation  of  vacancy,  endeavoring  to  extirpate  all 
natural  emotions,  has  no  message  for  the  modern  world 

1  The  importance  of  the  question  of  time  in  connection  with  the  New 
Testament  estimate  and  interpretation  of  Jesus  should  not  be  overlooked. 

Harnack  has  said  :  "  Within  two  generations  from  His  death  Jesus  Christ 
was  already  put  upon  the  highest  plane  upon  which  men  can  put  Him." 
(  What  is  Christianity  ?  p.  154,  Eng.  Tr.)  In  connection  with  this  statement 
Prof.  Mason  makes  the  following  comment,  "As  Harnack  put  the  Epistle 
to  the  Romans  between  52  and  54,  and  the  Epistles  to  the  Philippians, 
Colossians,  and  (more  doubtfully)  Ephesians  in  the  years  57-59,  or  per- 
haps 56-58,  he  might  have  said  within  one  generation,"  {Cam.  Theol. 
Essays,  p.  429,  note). 


THE    THEORY  OF  HEATHEN  INFLUENCE         1 69 

of  living  men  who  have  a  grip  upon  the  real  meaning  of 
life.  It  has  no  blessing  for  womanhood,  no  hope  for  the 
world,  save  in  ceasing  to  be.  The  followers  of  Buddha 
have  been  left  behind  in  the  progress  of  the  world  because 
they  were  taught  to  hope  nothing  except  ceasing  to  be, 
and  to  attempt  nothing  save  the  repression  of  feeling. 
Buddhism  is  the  survival  of  a  departed  era. 

Christ  has  been  the  inspiration  of  all  progress,  the  cre- 
ator of  new  eras  without  end,  the  leader  of  each  generation 
of  workers  because  he  poured  into  the  veins  of  his  follow- 
ers the  tonic  of  a  deathless  hope.  Christianity  is  the  relig- 
ion of  the  rising  sun.  The  future  is  always  within  its 
hand. 

On  all  grounds,  therefore,  we  are  justified  in  rejecting 
the  hypothesis  that  the  Buddha  legends  had  any  part  in 
the  formation  of  the  Infancy  narrative. 

If  the  virgin  birth  cannot  be  said  to  be  an  importation 
from  Buddhism,  may  it  not  have  come  from  Egypt  ?  The 
doctrine  of  a  virgin  birth  is  said  to  be  found  in  Egyptian 
documents,  as  also  other  "foregleams "  of  Christianity. 
Sayce  says :  "  We  owe  to  them  (the  Egyptian  thinkers) 
the  chief  molds  into  which  religious  thought  has  since 
been  thrown.  The  doctrines  of  emanation,  of  a  trinity 
wherein  one  god  manifests  himself  in  three  persons,  of 
absolute  thought  as  the  underlying  and  permanent  sub- 
stance of  all  things,  all  go  back  to  the  priestly  philosophers 
of  Egypt."  This  is  enthusiastic,  but  perhaps  not  too  much 
so.  But  we  shall  never  understand  the  history  of  religion, 
unless  we  keep  clearly  in  mind  differences,  as  well  as 
resemblances,  in  the  various  forms  of  faith.  The  Egyptian 
doctrine  of  virgin  births  is  connected  with  the  advent  of 
kings,  and  is  especially  marked  in  the  case  of  the  Pharaoh 
Amenhotep  III.  We  will  permit  Prof.  Sayce  to  tell  the 
story  of  this  myth,  and  also  to  furnish  us  a  translation  of 


I70  GOSPEL   NARRATIVES 

the  inscription  in  which  it  is  found.  "  On  the  western  wall 
of  one  of  the  chambers  in  the  southern  portion  of  the 
Temple  of  Luxor,  Champollion  first  noticed  that  the  birth 
of  Amenhotep  III.  is  portrayed;  the  inscription  and  scenes 
which  describe  it  have  since  been  copied,  and  we  learn 
from  them  that  he  had  no  human  father ;  Amon  himself 
descended  from  heaven  and  became  the  father  of  the  future 
king.  His  mother  was  still  a  virgin  when  the  God  of 
Thebes  '  incarnated  himself  so  that  she  might  '  behold 
him  in  his  divine  form.' "  The  inscription,  according  to 
Sayce,  is  as  follows :  "  Said  by  Amon-Ra,  etc. :  He  (the 
God)  has  incarnated  himself  in  the  royal  person  of  this 
husband,  Thotmes  IV.,  etc.  He  found  her  lying  in  her 
beauty ;  he  stood  beside  her  as  a  god.  She  has  fed  upon 
sweet  odors  emanating  from  his  majesty.  He  has  gone 
to  her  in  order  that  he  may  be  a  father  through  her.  He 
caused  her  to  behold  him  in  his  divine  form  when  he  had 
gone  upon  her  that  she  might  bear  a  child  at  the  sight  of 
his  beauty.  His  lovableness  penetrated  her  flesh,  filling 
it  with  the  odor  of  all  his  perfumes  of  Punt. 

"  Said  by  Mut-em-na  before  the  majesty  of  this  august 
god  Amon,  etc.,  the  twofold  divinity:  '  How  great  is  thy 
twofold  will,  how  (glorious  thy)  designs  in  making  thy 
heart  repose  upon  me !  Thy  dew  is  upon  all  my  flesh  in 
.  .  .  This  royal  god  has  done  all  that  is  pleasing  to  him 
with  her.' 

"  Said  by  Amon  before  her  majesty :  '  Amenhotep  is  the 
name  of  the  son  which  is  in  thy  womb.  This  child  shall 
grow  up  according  to  the  words  which  proceed  out  of 
thy  mouth.  He  shall  exercise  sovereignty  and  righteous- 
ness in  this  land  unto  its  very  end.  My  soul  is  in  him ; 
he  shall  wear  the  twofold  crown  of  royalty  ruling  the 
two  lands  like  the  sun  forever.'  " 

Here,  then,  are  the  facts.     What  conclusion  should  we 


THE    THEORY  OF  HEATHEN  INFLUENCE         171 

draw  from  them  ?  Have  we  here  a  clear  case  of  the 
heathen  origin  of  a  Christian  doctrine  ?    Let  us  look  at  it. 

To  begin  with,  I  am  compelled  to  express  what  may- 
seem  an  unreasonable  skepticism  as  to  the  distinctly  reli- 
gious character  of  this  so-called  "  virgin  birth."  I  have 
my  doubts  as  to  the  real  religious  value  attached  to  it 
even  by  those  who  were  most  zealous  in  advocating  it. 
The  Pharaonic  cult  was  a  politico-religious  combination 
in  which,  as  it  seems  to  me,  the  political  element  alto- 
gether overshadowed  the  religious. 

In  the  first  place,  it  was  not  the  primitive  religion  of  Egypt. 
It  was  forced  upon  the  people  by  conquerors  who  brought 
their  religion  with  them.  The  divineness  of  the  Pharaohs 
as  the  off-spring  of  the  sun  god  was  the  necessary  theoreti- 
cal justification  of  their  usurpation,1  and  throughout  its 
entire  history  there  are  significant  touches  which  indicate 
the  political  basis  of  the  cult.  It  ceased  at  Babylon  on 
the  overthrow  of  the  dynasty  with  which  it  had  been  con- 
nected. Its  rise  in  Egypt  was  coincident  with  the  advance 
of  the  conquering  usurpers  from  the  south.  It  was  the 
embodiment  of  the  political  principle  known  as  "the 
divine  right  of  kings."  It  was  in  conflict  with  the  native 
religion,  which  was  a  worship  of  nature  as  embodied  in 
sacred  animals.  In  spite  of  all  the  efforts  of  the  priests, 
the  new  religion  could  not  be  unified  with  the  old.  Prac- 
tically, as  we  know  from  incidents  in  the  reign  of  Rameses 
II.,  in  the  arena  of  politics  there  was  a  constant  conflict 
between  the  priests  and  the  Pharaohs.  Rebellion  against 
the  Pharaoh  was  theoretically  impiety  against  the  gods, 
yet  rebellions  and  popular  tumults  and  uprisings  in  which 
the  authority  of  the  Pharaohs  were  imperiled  were  not 
infrequent,  showing  that  the  divinity  of  the  ruler  was  not 

1  Cheyne  says  that  this  divinity  of  the  king  was  always  peculiarly  empha- 
sized in  connection  with  usurpers. 


I72  GOSPEL  NARRATIVES 

too  securely  held.  The  fifth  dynasty  is  the  first  in  Egypt- 
ian history  to  take  the  name  "  Son  of  Ra."  It  is  significant 
that  these  kings  came  from  a  frontier  island  inhabited  by 
foreigners.  These  foreigners,  instead  of  being  sons  of 
Horus,  became  sons  of  Ra.  On  the  basis  of  a  Babylonian 
analogy  (the  priests  of  Babylon  having  refused  to  acknowl- 
edge the  legitimacy  of  a  foreign  king  who  had  not  been 
adopted  by  the  sungod),  Sayce  says  :  "  It  may  be  (in  the 
case  of  the  kings  of  the  fifth  dynasty)  that  the  price  of  their 
acknowledgement  by  the  priests  and  princes  of  Memphis 
was  their  acceptance  of  the  title  'Son  of  Ra.'  It  narrowed 
their  pretensions  to  divinity,  and  at  the  same  time  implied 
their  submission  to  the  god  of  the  great  sanctuary  which 
stood  in  such  close  relation  with  Memphis." l  In  other 
words,  the  divine  standing  of  the  ruling  monarch  varied 
with  the  stability  of  his  temporal  power.  A  new  king 
received  his  rank  in  the  Pantheon  at  the  hands  of  the 
priests.  He  had  no  more  divinity  granted  to  him  than  he 
could  maintain  vi  et  armis.  And,  so  far  as  the  people 
were  concerned,  the  divinity  that  hedged  the  Pharaohs 
never  was  so  clear  and  undoubted  a  tenet  of  faith  as  the 
sacredness  of  the  bull  Apis,  or  of  the  cats  and  crocodiles 
which  were  protected  with  such  great  care.  An  instance 
is  related  of  a  Greek  officer  under  one  of  the  Ptolemies 
who  carelessly  caused  the  death  of  a  cat.  All  the  powers 
of  the  throne  which  were  exercised  in  his  favor  could  not 
save  his  life. 

But  most  significant  of  all  for  our  present  purpose,  is 
the  fact  that  this  alleged  virgin  birth  was  expressly  framed 
to  meet  a  dynastic  exigency.     Let  Sayce  speak  again.2 

"  Legitimacy  of  birth  was  reckoned  through  the  mother 

1  Hibbuert  Lee,  Egypt,  and  Bab.  Re/.,  p.  88. 

2Cf.,  also  Cheyne,  B.  P.,  p.  237  and  references  ;  Maspero's  Dawn  of 
Civilization,  p.  259. 


THE    THE  OR  Y  OF  HE  A  THEN  I  NFL  UENCE         1 7  3 

by  whom,  accordingly,  the  divine  nature  of  the  Pharaoh 
was  handed  on.  Only  those  who  had  been  born  of  a 
princess  of  the  royal  family  could  be  considered  to  possess 
it  in  all  its  purity ;  and  where  this  title  was  wanting,  it  was 
necessary  to  assume  the  direct  intervention  of  a  god.  The 
mother  of  Amenhotep  III.  (the  king  whose  birth  is  alleged 
to  have  been  miraculous)  was  of  Asiatic  origin  ;  we  read 
therefore,  on  the  walls  of  the  Temple  of  Luxor,  that  he 
was  born  of  a  virgin,  and  the  god  of  Thebes.  Alexander, 
the  Conqueror  of  Egypt,  was  a  Macedonian  ;  it  was  need- 
ful accordingly  that  he  should  be  acknowledged  as  a  son 
by  the  god  of  the  oasis  of  Ammon."1 

Upon  this  one  consideration,  the  theory  of  Egyptian 
influence  over  the  Infancy  narrative  is  destroyed,  and 
incidentally  the  larger  part  of  the  alleged  pagan  analogies 
lose  their  force.  According  to  Canon  Cheyne's  own  in- 
terpretation, the  word  "virgin,"  as  used  in  the  myths, 
goes  back  to  the  tribal  mother  who  was  independent  of 
the  marriage  tie,  held  chief  place  in  the  clan,  and  with  the 
rest  of  the  women  "  shared  a  measure  of  free  love."  The 
myths  in  which  these  alleged  virgin  births  occur,  reflect 
the  ideas  of  people  who  had  reached  the  polyandrous  stage 
of  social  development,  in  which  the  woman  rules  the  tribe, 
and  has  many  husbands. 

It  ought  not  to  be  necessary  to  say  that  of  this  influence 
the  Infancy  narratives  show  not  the  slightest  trace.  To 
say  nothing  of  Matthew,  who  places  Mary  in  the  back- 
ground, puts  the  direction  of  affairs  in  the  hands  of  Joseph, 
and  guards  his  dignity  and  rights  with  scrupulous  care ; 
even  Luke,  who  brings  Mary  forward,  and  is  keenly  alive 
to  her  significance,  subordinates  her  to  the  Child,  and  rep- 
resents her  as  a  humble,  submissive,  and  obedient  hand- 
maid of  the  Lord.  In  this  connection  the  genealogies  are 
1  Ibid,  P.  45. 


174  GOSPEL   NARRATIVES 

significant.  In  both  cases  we  have  Joseph's  genealogy- 
given.  The  true  Jewish  attitude  is  exhibited,  which  traces 
the  birthright  and  inheritance  through  the  male  line. 

But  to  return  to  the  Egyptian  instances,  we  find  that  the 
alleged  cases  of  miraculous  conception  were  simply  legal 
fictions  invented  and  accepted  to  legitimatize  a  claimant 
to  a  throne.  There  is  no  evidence  that  anybody  believed 
it  as  a  religious  truth.  There  was  no  genuine  religious 
conviction  in  the  acceptance  of  the  divinity  of  Amenhotep 
III.,  except,  perhaps,  among  those  fanatically  attached  to 
the  dynasty.1 

This  judgment  is  confirmed  by  the  wording  of  the 
inscription  itself.  According  to  Sayce,  the  god  Amon, 
who  was  the  father  of  Amenhotep,  incarnated  himself 
before  the  conception  took  place.  Once  more,  according 
to  the  inscription,  the  god  parent  became  incarnate  in  the 
royal  person  of  the  queen's  husband,  Thothmes  IV.  That 
is  to  say,  that  the  alleged  virgin  birth  is  not  a  virgin  birth 
at  all,  but  a  flatterer's  idealization  of  the  birth  of  a  prince, 
whose  claim  to  the  throne  which  he  occupies  is  not 
beyond  question.2 

The  analogy,  therefore,  which  the  story  presents  is  not 
really  an  analogy  at  all,  but  is  a  series  of  contrasts 
throughout. 

Moreover,  I  doubt  the  accessibility  of  this  myth  to 
Jewish  minds.  It  belonged  to  the  life  of  ancient  Egypt ; 
the  record  of  it  was  locked  away  in  the  sacred  language ; 

1  Of  course  I  do  not  mean  to  say  that  the  untaught  crowd  did  not  after 
a  fashion  worship  the  Pharaoh  along  with  their  sacred  bulls,  crocodiles, 
ibises,  and  cats.  My  argument  refers  to  the  men  who  formulated  the 
alleged  statements  concerning  the  miraculous  birth  of  the  kings. 

2  On  the  parentage  of  Amenhotep  III.,  cf.  Breasted,  Hist.  Egypt  (Scrib- 
ner's)  1905,  p.  328  ;  Rawlinson,  Ancient  Egypt,  vol.  ii,  p.  261  (Longman's 
and  Co.  1881);  Budge,  Hist.  Egypt  (Ox.  Un.  Press,  1902),  vol.  iv,  p.  90  ; 
Brugsch,  Egypt  under  Pharaohs  (Scrib.,  1891),  p.  201. 


THE    THEORY  OF  HEATHEN  INFLUENCE         lj$ 

the  form  in  which  this  inscription  gives  it  was  no  part  of 
the  popular  faith.  Indeed,  long  years  before  Christ  came, 
the  original  form  of  the  myth  had  faded  from  the  minds  of 
the  Egyptian  teachers  of  religion  themselves  into  a  mere 
allegory ;  for  we  are  told  that  a  later  statue  represents  the 
god  pouring  the  sacred  ichor,  which  constitutes  this  trans- 
mitted divinity,  into  the  veins  of  the  king  standing  before  him. 

To  complete  the  severance  of  the  myth  from  the  Gos- 
pel narratives,  it  is  necessary  only  to  bring  them  together. 
Read  the  inscription,  and  note  the  sensuousness  of  the 
imagery  in  which  the  sacred  mystery  of  life  is  unveiled, 
and  compare  it  with  the  story  of  the  Gospels,  in  which, 
with  a  delicacy  which  surpasses  admiration,  words  are 
used  in  such  a  way  as  to  reveal  the  central  fact,  while  the 
circumstances  are  wrapped  in  an  impenetrable  seclusion. 
In  passing  from  the  one  narrative  to  the  other  we  enter 
a  different  world  of  ideas  and  of  feelings. 

I  have  dealt  with  this  one  case  of  parallelism  some- 
what in  detail  because  the  case  is  typical.  In  the  vast 
majority  of  instances,  as  in  this  one,  the  resemblances  are 
apparent  and  superficial,  while  the  differences  are  world- 
wide and  deep-seated. 

The  theory  of  heathen  influence  has  undergone  trans- 
formation at  the  hands  of  Canon  Cheyne. 1  Certain  fun- 
damental questions  involved  in  Cheyne's  book  I  shall  deal 
with  in  another  place.  Here  we  are  concerned  with  his 
theory  of  the  origin  of  the  Infancy  story.  He  abandons 
definitely  the  creation  of  the  narrative  by  the  influence 
of  Isa.  vii,  14,  and  also  the  direct  influence  of  contempo- 
rary heathenism.  He  attributes  the  rise  of  the  stories  to 
what  might  be  called  a  domesticated  Jewish  heathenism. 
The  theory  is  an  application  of  the  new  pan-Babylonian 
propaganda.     Let  the  author  speak  for  himself. 

1  Bible  Problems,  1904,  (Crown  Library,  Putnam). 


176  GOSPEL  NARRATIVES 

"  The  historical  explanation  of  the  statement  of  the 
virgin  birth  of  Christ,  which  seems  to  me  to  be  the  most 
probable,  is  that  it  originated,  not  in  a  mistranslation  of 
the  Immanuel  prophecy  (Isa.  vii,  14),  which  is  Prof.  Har- 
nack's  theory,  nor,  immediately  in  a  non-Jewish,  heathen 
story,  adopted  by  Gentile  Christians,  a  story  such  as  those 
which  Mr.  Gartland  in  his  Perseus,  and  Prof.  Usener  in  his 
Weihnachtsfest,  have  collected  in  abundance  (this  is  Prof. 
Schmiedel's  theory),  but  in  a  story  of  non-Jewish  origin 
current  in  Jewish  circles,  and  borrowed  from  them  by 
certain  Jewish  Christians  (this  is  Prof.  Gunkel's  theory)." l 

The  writer  criticises  the  theories  of  Usener  and  Schmie- 
del  (and  the  criticism  would  also  apply  to  Soltau)  in  two 
particulars  : — 

1.  They  are  wrong  in  stating  that  the  circles  in  which 
the  statement  of  the  virgin  birth  of  Jesus  Christ  were 
first  current  were  Gentile  Christian. 

2.  In  making  too  wide  a  search  for  parallels ;  that  is,  in 
passing  beyond  the  range  of  connection  with  the  Jews. 

The  parallels  to  be  sought  are  Arabian,  Babylonian, 
Egyptian,  and  Persian,  because  these  were  most  likely  to 
have  influenced  the  beliefs  of  the  Jews.  These  two  criti- 
cisms are  of  immense  importance  to  the  argument  as  we 
shall  see  later. 

But  we  ask,  How  did  the  heathen  notions  become 
domesticated  in  Israel?  The  Canon  is  ready  with  an 
answer  to  this  natural  question  :  The  basis  of  this  argu- 
ment is  to  be  found  in  the  fact  that  long  before  the  life 
of  Christ  the  Israelites  had  come  under  the  influence  of 
highly-developed  Oriental  cultures.  The  influence  was 
especially  strong  in  the  post-exilic  period.  In  other 
words,  long  before  the  Christian  era,  heathen  elements 
were    incorporated    into    the   thought   and    life   of  the 

1  Tages  71,  72. 


THE    THEORY  OF  HEATHEN  INFLUENCE         1 77 

Jews,  so  that  complete  Messianic  myths  were  at  hand, 
ready-made,  and  nothing  was  needed  but  an  historic 
person  like  Jesus  to  whom  they  might  be  definitely 
applied.  But  this  process  of  adoption  was  accompanied 
by  adaptation.  "  Of  course  the  religion  of  Israel  reacted 
against  these  influences,  the  dangerousness  of  which  must 
have  been  apparent.  Consequently  the  things  which 
were  borrowed  were  more  or  less  completely  Hebraized  and 
rendered  innocuous."  1  Where  is  this  influence  of  Oriental 
Mythology  to  be  found  ?  What  evidences  do  we  discover 
in  the  Scriptures  that  such  a  syncretism  has  taken  place  ? 

"The  constant  pressure  of  Oriental  beliefs  on  the  Israel- 
itish  religion  is  abundantly  attested,  and  its  traces  are 
nowhere  more  visible  than  in  the  Apocalyptic  portions  of 
Daniel,  and  in  the  book  of  the  Revelation." 

Between  the  last  statement  quoted  above  and  the  eluci- 
dation of  the  historic  parallels  which  he  urges,  Canon 
Cheyne  inserts  a  parenthetic  remark,  and,  connected  with 
it,  a  long  note,  the  two  together  forming  one  of  the  main 
props  of  his  entire  argument : — 

"  Parenthetically,  I  may  remark  here  that  the  popular 
Messianic  belief  was  probably  much  more  definite  than  we 
might  suppose  from  most  of  the  Jewish  religious  literature. 
It  received  a  great  impulse  from  the  reference  in  the  Book 
of  Daniel  (vii,  13  /),  but  this  reference  itself  proves  that 
the  Messianic  belief  had  already  a  development  behind  it. 
And  from  the  Synoptic  Gospels  we  see  that  this  belief 
was  deeply  fixed  in  the  popular  mind  in  the  time  of  Jesus. 
So  much  may  be  stated,  with  the  brevity  which  our  cir- 
cumstances demand,  to  illustrate  the  statement  that  the 
account  in  Matt,  i,  18,  has  most  probably  arisen  out  of 
a  non-Jewish  story,  known  in  certain  Jewish  circles,  and 
adopted  from  these  by  some  Christians."     (Page  7$-) 

1  Page  70. 
12 


I78  GOSPEL  NARRATIVES 

The  conclusion  to  which  the  long  and  somewhat  con- 
fused note  leads  is,  that  the  being  resembling  a  man  in 
Dan.  vii,  13  is  very  probably  no  other  than  the  prince- 
angel  Michael. 

Further,  it  is  concluded  that  this  being  is  also  the 
Messiah. 

"  Finally,  this  man-like  being,  who  is  Michael  and  also  the 
Messiah,  corresponds  to  Marduk  (Merodach),  the  son  of 
Ea,  and  to  Nabu  (Nebo),  the  son  of  Marduk — originally, 
perhaps  indentical  (Zimmern) — in  the  genealogical  system 
of  Babylonian  theology." 

The  cycle  of  connection  between  the  myth  and  the 
Infancy  narrative  is  made  through  Rev.  xii  in  which  the 
woman  mentioned  under  such  glowing  imagery  is  a  trans- 
formation of  the  Babylonian  myth  connected  with  Mar- 
duk. The  seven- headed  dragon  (Rev.  xii,  3)  also  called 
the  "  ancient  serpent "  is  no  other  than  Tiamat,  whom 
the  god  of  the  springtide  sun — Marduk — encountered 
and  overcame. 

Prof.  Gunkel  has  also  pointed  out  striking  points  of 
contact  between  Rev.  xii  and  Dan.  vii,  and  argues  that 
since  the  former  passage  cannot  possibly  be  viewed  as  an 
imitation  of  the  latter,  and  since  Dan.  vii  has  been  proved 
(by  himself)  to  have  strong  Babylonian  affinities,  we  can- 
not do  otherwise  than  assume  a  Babylonian  origin  for 
Rev.  xii. 

This  interpretation  of  the  passage  in  Rev.  xii,  as  the 
working  up  of  a  sun-myth  ultimately  of  Babylonian  origin, 
is  made  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  exactly  such  a  myth  has 
not  yet  been  found  in  the  Babylonian  records  so  far 
brought  to  light. 

Now,  interpret  the  passage  in  the  Revelation  as  the  story 
of  the  Messiah's  mother,  and  the  chain  of  connection 
between   Babylon  and  Bethlehem  is  complete.     Cheyne 


THE    THEORY  OF  HEATHEN  INFLUENCE         1 79 

says:  "That  the  woman, 'clothed  with  the  sun,  and  the 
moon  under  her  feet,  and  upon  her  head  a  crown  of  twelve 
stars,'  was,  to  the  Jewish  narrator,  the  mother  of  the 
expected  Messiah,  is  plain.  But  it  is  from  the  kindred 
mythologies  of  Babylonia  and  Egypt  that  we  learn  why 
the  woman  was  so  magnificently  arrayed. 

"The  reason  was  that, according  to  the  underlying  myth, 
she  was  the  queen  of  heaven,  the  mother  of  the  sungod." 

The  next  step  is  to  elaborate  the  parallel  between  the 
passage  in  the  Revelation  and  the  Infancy  narrative.  "  In 
the  original  myth  of  the  world-redeemer's  birth,  a  place 
was  doubtless  given  to  the  persecution  of  His  mother  by  the 
dragon.  No  practiced  eye  can  fail  to  see  its  counterpart 
in  Matt.  ii.  The  infuriated  dragon  becomes  the  angry 
Herod,  whose  popular  reputation  for  cruelty  marked  him 
out  as  a  fit  historical  representative  of  the  blood-thirsty 
monster  of  chaos."  There  are  several  important  and  strik- 
ing differences  which  the  reader  may  follow  out  for  him- 
self. I  wish,  however,  to  quote  a  striking  passage  in 
which  there  is  more  than  appears  to  the  eye.  "The 
woman  arrayed  with  the  sun — a  representation  still  pre- 
served in  the  Jewish-Christian  Apocalyptic  passage — 
became  to  the  writer  in  the  Matthean  prelude  a  lowly  Jew- 
ish maiden ;  the  functions  of  her  Son  became,  not  the 
destruction  of  the  chaos-monster,  nor  the  ruling  of  nations 
with  a  rod  of  iron,  but  the  internal  as  well  as  external  sal- 
vation of  His  people ;  the  royal  capital  of  the  Redeemer 
became  not  Babylon  but  Jerusalem  ;  the  dragon  with  jaws 
wide  open  to  devour,  became  Herod,  '  seeking  the  young 
child '  in  Bethlehem  '  to  destroy  him ;'  the  flight  of  the 
mother  into  the  wilderness  (the  child  had  been  caught  up 
to  God's  throne)  became  the  flight  of  the  Holy  Family 
into  Egypt." 

The  conclusion  of  the  whole  matter  is  thus  stated :  "  So 


l8o  GOSPEL  NARRATIVES 

far  as  the  virginity  of  the  mother  of  Christ  is  concerned,  I 
speak  as  a  historical  critic,  that  the  passage  in  the  prelude 
to  the  first  Gospel  is  a  Jewish-Christian  transformation  of 
a  primitive  story,  derived  ultimately,  in  all  probability,  from 
Babylonia,  and  analogous  to  the  Jewish  transformation  of 
the  Babylonian  cosmogeny  in  the  opening  section  of 
Genesis." 

In  attempting  the  criticism  of  this  theory  I  wish  to  call 
attention,  first  of  all,  to  the  fact  that  the  fundamental  the- 
sis upon  which  the  entire  structure  depends  is  contested. 
The  influence  of  Babylonian  ideas  upon  the  Old  Testament 
is  in  dispute,  and,  while  Dr.  Cheyne  is  perfectly  sure  that 
the  question  has  been  finally  settled,  other  scholars  just  as 
competent  differ  from  him.  That  cosmological  myths 
have  been  imported  and  domesticated  within  the  limits  of 
Israel,  is  denied  by  strong  and  capable  thinkers.  The 
matter  is  at  least  doubtful.  There  is  no  question,  however, 
that  in  all  periods  of  Jewish  history,  even  when  apostasy 
was  most  widespread  as  in  the  days  of  Elijah,  there  have 
been  some  who  have  not  bowed  the  knee  to  Baal.  Early 
in  the  post-exilic  period,  when  the  alleged  foreign  influence 
was  most  general,  a  reaction  began  against  all  forms  of 
heathen  thought,  and  this  reaction  gathered  momentum 
through  the  Maccabean  and  Roman  periods,  which  carried 
it  down  to  the  days  of  Christ.1  There  were  always  some 
who  accepted  nothing  heathen  if  they  were  aware  of  its 
heathen  nature  and  origin.  There  was  an  inner  spiritual 
core  of  the  nation  to  whom  all  heathen  conceptions  were  an 
abomination.  It  is,  therefore,  at  least  a  doubtful  question 
whether  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  may  not  have 
been  of  this  class,  insulated  by  the  intensity  of  their  Hebraism 
from  contact  with  heathen  ideas.     Of  this,  more  hereafter. 

1  Kent,  Historv  of  J.  P.  in  Bab.,  Per.,  and  Grk.  Periods,  pp.  262-3  '■>  Riggs» 
Mac.  and  Roman  Period,  pp.  16,  17, 


THE    THEORY  OF  HEATHEN  INFLUENCE        l8l 

The  essential  point  now  at  issue  is'  the  contact  with 
heathenism.  Cheyne  criticises  the  views  of  other  theorists 
on  this  subject,  on  the  ground  that  in  going  so  far  afield 
into  heathenism  for  analogies  they  have  gathered  many 
which  could  not  have  been  accessible  to  the  Jews  of  any 
period.  But  is  he  any  more  happy  in  his  attempt  to  connect 
heathenism  with  the  New  Testament,  and  especially  the 
Infancy  narratives  ?  Taking  up  the  chain  of  connection 
which  he  has  formed  between  the  Babylonian  myths  and 
the  prelude  of  Matthew,  I  notice  that  it  is  defective  in  three 
essential  particulars.  In  the  first  place,  his  interpretation 
of  Dan.  vii,  13  is  more  than  doubtful.  According  to  the 
best  interpretation  of  the  passage,  the  manlike  being  refers 
not  to  any  personality x  whether  the  Messiah,  Michael  or 
Marduk,  but  to  the  character  of  the  kingdom.  Just  as 
the  other  kingdoms  which  are  characterized  by  brute  force 
and  cruelty  are  symbolized  by  beasts,  so  the  last  great 
kingdom  which  is  to  be  characterized  by  reason  and  justice 
is  symbolized  by  a  manlike  being.  It  refers  to  the  Mes- 
siah inferentially,  but  the  primary  reference  is  to  the  nature 
of  the  Messianic  kingdom.  The  resemblance  to  the 
Marduk  myth,  according  to  this  interpretation,  becomes 
very  dim. 

In  the  second  place,  the  interpretation  of  the  passage  in 
the  Revelation  as  a  reference  to  the  Messiah's  birth  is  also 
doubtful  (see  Cheyne :  Note,  p.  240). 

Dr.  Gore  interprets  this  passage,  as  does  Dr.  Cheyne, 
as  a  reference  to  Christ's  birth,  but  even  so,  there  is  in  the 
passage  no  hint  of  a  miraculous  conception.  Even  if  the 
passage  can  be  connected  on  one  side  with  the  Babylonian 
mythology,  it  cannot  be  united  on  the  other  with  the 
Infancy  narrative.  We  have  an  ideal  representation  of 
the   birth    of  the  World's  Redeemer  from  faithful  Israel, 

1  Mathews,  Messianic  Hope  in  N.  T,  p.  31,  note  4. 


1 82  GOSPEL  NARRATIVES 

and  His  triumph  over  foes  that  lie  in  wait  at  His  advent. 
In  important  particulars,  it  departs  from  the  historic 
account  of  Christ's  birth.  But  the  representation  is  wholly- 
Jewish.  "  The  use  of  the  number  twelve  indeed  suggests 
the  thought  of  a  bond  of  connection  between  this  light 
(worn  by  the  woman),  and  the  Christian  Church.  The 
tribes  of  Israel,  the  type  of  God's  spiritual  Israel,  were  in 
number  twelve ;  our  Lord  chose  to  Himself  twelve  apos- 
tles ;  the  new  Jerusalem  has  twelve  gates,  and  at  the  gate 
twelve  angels,  and  names  written  thereon  which  are  the 
names  of  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel."  1 

In  the  third  place,  if  the  interpretation  given  both  of 
Daniel  vii  and  Rev.  xii  is  correct,  and  the  connection  of 
both  with  Babylon  established,  the  fact  has  no  bearing 
whatsoever  upon  the  derivation  of  Matthew's  narrative. 
This  belongs  to  a  different  form  of  literature  altogether. 
It  is  outside  the  cycle  of  common  influences.  The  trans- 
formation which  Dr.  Cheyne  points  out  in  the  story  shows 
this  important  fact.  He  says  that  the  dragon  of  the  myth 
becomes  Herod  and  the  woman  clothed  with  the  sun  and 
crowned  with  stars  a  lowly  Jewish  maiden,  etc.  It  is  evi- 
dent that  if  there  has  been  any  transformation  here  it  has 
been  in  the  opposite  direction.  A  Jewish  maiden,  who  was 
believed  to  be  mother  of  the  Messiah,  might  in  Apoca- 
lyptic (perhaps  has)  become  the  star-crowned  woman  in 
heaven,  and  Herod,  the  enemy  of  the  Messiah,  might 
become  a  dragon,  but  by  no  conceivable  process  could  the 
order  be  reversed.  The  only  plausible  evidence  which  he 
adduces  of  domesticated  heathen  ideas  are  found  in  Apoca- 
lyptic literature.  But  isn't  Dr.  Cheyne  familiar  enough 
with  this  literature  to  recognize  that  the  prelude  of  Matthew 
moves  in  a  totally  different  realm,  and  is  the  result  of  dif- 
ferent influences  ?      If    he  doesn't   see   this   distinction, 

1  Milligan,  Ex.  Bib.,  Rev.,  p.  198. 


THE    THEORY  OF  HEATHEN  INFLUENCE         1 83 

there  must  be  something  lacking  in  his  "  practiced  eye." 
Let  any  reader,  contrast  the  extravagant  description,  the 
high-sounding  epithets,  the  cosmic  transactions  of  the 
myths,  with  the  story  of  the  Gospels — the  humble  maiden, 
the  carpenter,  the  inn  stable,  the  simple  language,  the 
definite  dates  and  locations — and  ask  himself  whether  it  is 
possible  to  believe  that  the  Gospel  story  is  an  adaptation 
of  the  myth.1 

1  The  very  fact  that  this  alleged  heathen  element  is  so  disguised  that  a 
special  critical  apparatus  is  required  to  reveal  its  presence  is  argument 
enough  against  its  reality.  Unless  it  is  the  work  of  a  conscious  and  delib- 
erate fabricator  no  such  concealment  would  be  attempted.  Naive  uncon- 
scious heathenism  is  naked  and  unashamed.  Combinations  of  pagan  and 
Christian  elements  are  always  mixtures  not  chemical  unions,  and  the  pagan 
elements  are  distinctly  traceable.  In  most  instances  the  motives  operating 
in  the  minds  of  the  originators  of  such  schemes  are  also  plainly  discernible. 
A  complete  amalgamation  of  Christian  and  heathen  ideas  in  which  the 
heathen  elements  reappear  in  purely  Christian  forms  is  unknown  to  history. 
"  Out  of  the  fusing  of  cosmological  myths  and  philosophies  of  Oriental  and 
Greek  paganism  with  Christian  historical  elements  in  the  crucible  of  its  own 
speculation,  there  arose  numerous  systems  of  a  higher  fantastic  sort  of  relig- 
ious philosophy,  which  were  included  under  the  common  name  of  Gnosti- 
cism. The  pagan  element  upon  the  whole  is  the  prevailing  one,  inasmuch 
as  in  most  Gnostic  systems  Christianity  is  not  represented  as  the  conclusion 
and  completion  of  the  development  of  salvation  given  in  the  Old  Testament, 
but  often  merely  as  the  continuation  and  climax  of  the  pagan  religion  of 
nature  and  the  pagan  mystery  worship."  (Kurtz,  Ch.  His.,  Eng.  Tr., 
vol.  i,  p.  99.) 

In  these  known  combinations  of  Christian  and  pagan  elements,  the  inter- 
est in  paganism  is  open  and  undisguised.  In  apologetic  concessions  from 
the  Christian  side  such  as  we  find  in  Justin  the  motive  is  also  apparent. 
A  striking  example  of  easily  discernible  pagan  elements  in  a  Christian 
document  is  to  be  found  in  the  Gospel  of  Peter  (quoted  and  commented 
upon  by  Wilkinson  :  Early  History  of  the  Gospels  pp.  33,  f.)  In  the 
account  of  the  Resurrection  occurs  this  passage:  "And  as  they  declared 
what  things  they  had  seen,  again  they  see  coming  forth  from  the  tomb, 
three  men,  and  the  two  following  them.  And  of  the  two  the  head  reached 
unto  the  heaven,  but  the  head  of  Him  that  was  led  by  them  overpassed  the 
heavens.  And  they  heard  a  voice  from  the  heavens  saying.  '  Hast  thou 
preached  to  them  that  sleep  ?  '     And  an  answer  was  heard  from  the  Cross, 


184  GOSPEL  NARRATIVES 

There  is  another  difficulty  much  more  important  than 
these,  the  consideration  of  which  will  lead  us  to  the  very- 
heart  of  the  whole  question. 

If  the  Gospel  story  is  such  an  adaptation,  it  has  under- 
gone a  complete  moral  and  spiritual  transformation.  The 
parallels  with  the  Gospel  story  upon  which  Dr.  Cheyne 
dwells  most  at  length  are  the  Tammuz  cult  in  N.  Arabia 
and  the  Babylonian  myth  of  Marduk.  The  latter  we  have 
already  noticed.  Of  the  former  he  says  :  "Dusares  (local 
name  for  Tammuz)  in  fact  was  worshiped,  both  at  Petra 
and  at  Elusa,  as  'the  only  begotten  of  the  Lord' 
{p.ovoyEvqz  too  AeoTcbroo,  etc.),  and  his  mother  as  the  virgin 
{jtap^kvo'z,  Xope)."  The  phrase  "  only  begotten  "  may  re- 
mind us  of  the  "  only  begotten  Son  "  in  Jno.  i,  18  (Cheyne, 

P-  75} 

It  is  also  to  be  noted  that  the  Tammuz  cult  (according 
to  Jerome)  was  practiced  in  the  reputed  cave  of  the  Nativity 
at  Bethlehem.  How  close  the  parallel  in  words  !  But  let 
us  look  a  little  more  particularly  at  the  thing  signified. 

Istar,  who  was  beloved  by  Tammuz  "  was  conceived  of 
as  a  virgin,  or  at  all  events  as  a  goddess  who  might  indulge 
in  amours  so  long  as  they  did  not  lead  to  regular  mar- 
riage." In  other  words,  the  only  meaning  of  the  word 
"  virgin  "  as  applied  to  Istar  was  that  she  was  not  regularly 
married.  The  nature  of  the  Tammuz  cult  in  the  cave  of 
the  Nativity  may  be  inferred  from  the  following  descrip- 
tion which  I  introduce  only  because  it  is  necessary  to  an 

'Yea. '  "  When  we  learn  from  the  sacred  book  of  the  sect  of  Elkesaites 
that  they  taught  doctrines  in  which  gigantic  beings  like  angels  figure  we 
are  not  at  a  loss  to  assign  this  document  to  its  probable  source.  Is  there 
anything  comparable  with  this  in  the  Infancy  narrative?  The  incident 
which  comes  nearest  to  it  is  the  visit  of  the  wise  men — but  while  this  is 
told  in  the  phraseology  of  the  Magians,  it  is  yet  related  from  the  view-point 
of  the  Jew,  and  without  exhibiting  the  slightest  interest  in  their  peculiar 
doctrines. 


THE    THEORY  OF  HEATHEN  INFLUENCE         1 85 

understanding  of  the  problem.  "At  Erech,  Istar  was 
served   by  organized  bands  of  unmarried   maidens  who 

prostituted  themselves  in  honor  of  the  goddess 

In  return  for  the  lives  they  led,  '  the  handmaids  of  Istar ' 
were  independent  from  the  control  of  men." 1 

Add  to  this  the  statement  in  which  Dr.  Cheyne  gives 
the  historical  interpretation  of  the  word  "  virgin,"  and  the 
theory  in  all  its  completeness  will  stand  before  you. 

"  And  what  was  the  original  meaning  of  the  term 
'  virgin '  ?  As  has  long  since  been  shown,  it  expressed 
the  fact  that  the  great  mythic  mother-goddess  was  inde- 
pendent of  the  marriage-tie.  In  those  remote  times  to 
which  the  cult  of  that  goddess  properly  belonged,  'the 
mother  held  the  chief  place  in  the  clan,  and  all  women 
shared  a  measure  of  free  love.'2  The  goddess-mother,  in 
fact,  preceded  the  goddess-wife." 

We  have  at  last  tracked  this  hypothesis  to  its  lair,  and 
the  quest  has  led  us  into  the  foul  depths  of  the  orgiastic 
and  licentious  rites  of  the  heathen  worship  with  which  the 
Hebrew  people  were  forbidden  to  have  any  fellowship 
upon  penalty  of  the  wrath  of  Jehovah,  and  for  falling  into 
which  they  were  punished  with  fire  and  sword  again  and 
again.  We  have,  then,  this  striking  phenomenon  for  which 
the  theory  must  account :  A  narrative,  marked  by  these 
three  outstanding  peculiarities,  Hebraic  monotheism 
(witness  the  songs) ;  spirituality  of  mind  (witness  the 
characters) ;  exalted  purity  of  heart  (witness  the  ret- 
icence as  to  details,  and  the  general  atmosphere  and  tone 
of  the  narrative)  ;  was  derived  more  or  less  mediately  from 
a  heathen  polytheistic  mythology,  accompanied  by  grovel- 
ing materialism  of  mind,  and  impure  social  rites.  Surely 
a  white  lily  never  grew  from  mud  so  foul.     Moreover,  the 

1  Sayce,  Eg.  Bab.  Rel. 

*  Quoting  Barton,  Sera.     Origins,  p.  84. 


1 86  GOSPEL   NARRATIVES 

heart,  the  central  mystery,  namely,  the  Lord's  birth,  is 
original.  "  The  stress  laid  on  the  virginity  (in  the  ordinary 
sense  of  the  word)  of  the  holy  mother  is  peculiar  to  the 
evangelist." 

Everyone  must  admit  that  this  marvelous  transformation 
of  mud  into  a  flower  requires  some  explanation ;  indeed  an 
explanation  that  will  really  grip  hold  of  the  difficulties 
involved  in  the  supposition.  In  order  to  exhibit  Dr. 
Cheyne's  explanation  of  this  extraordinary  phenomenon, 
I  wish  to  bring  together  a  number  of  sentences  which  lose 
nothing  by  being  taken  out  of  their  connection. 

The  first  one  refers  to  the  matter  of  heathen  borrowings 
in  general,  the  others  to  the  specific  instance  in  hand. 

"  Of  course,  the  religion  of  Israel  reacted  against  these 
influences,  the  dangerousness  of  which  must  have  been  ap- 
parent (italics  mine).  Consequently,  the  things  which 
were  borrowed  were  more  or  less  completely  Hebraized, 
and  rendered  innocuous."  (P.  70,71.)  "We  must  re- 
member that  the  real  presence  of  a  spirit  of  holiness  in 
Israel  is  best  proved  by  its  transformations  of  the  rude  and 
gross  conceptions  of  a  primitive  age."     (P.  76.) 

"  It  (the  change  in  the  meaning  of  the  word  virgin) 
arose  out  of  a  misunderstood  title  which  originally  implied 
something  very  far  from  the  thoughts  of  Christians,  and 
the  narrative,  to  a  historic  and  therefore  reverent  mind,  is 
by  no  means  disparaged  if  taken  to  stand  in  some  con- 
nection with  the  Egyptian  theory  of  the  divine  generation 
of  kings,  and  the  Philonian  belief  in  the  divine  generation 
of  certain  favored  personages  of  the  Old  Testatment." 
(P.  90.) 

Combining  these  scattered  elements  of  explanation,  we 
have  the  following  lucid  and  convincing  result.  That  the 
spirit  of  holiness  in  Israel  (for  no  conceivable  purpose 
that  appears,  except  to  frame  a  false  adornment  for  the 


THE    THEORY  OF  HEATHEN  INFLUENCE         1 87 

person  of  the  Messiah)  purified  a  foul  heathen  myth  into 
a  pure  Jewish-Christian  one,  without  making  it  any  the 
less  a  myth,  using  for  the  purpose  of  purification  the  inno- 
cence of  the  Christian  writer,  who  could  not  understand 
that  the  word  "  virgin  "  in  the  myth  which  he  was  adopt- 
ing had  any  meaning  other  than  the  pure  and  sacred  one 
to  which  he  had  been  accustomed. 

Extended  comment  upon  this  explanation  is  unneces- 
sary.    I  offer  the  following  suggestions  : — 

1.  An  analogy  in  which  part  and  counterpart  diverge 
at  every  vital  point  cannot  rightly  be  called  an  analogy  at 
all.  A  myth  which  uses  the  word  "  virgin  "  in  one  sense 
cannot  be  the  analogue  of  a  narrative  which  uses  it  in 
exactly  the  opposite  sense.  Birth  from  a  pure  maiden, 
and  birth  from  a  polyandrous  tribal  mother,  "  who  enjoys 
a  measure  of  free  love,"  are  not  parallels  but  contrasts. 

2.  The  spirit  of  holiness  in  Israel  does  not  inspire  false- 
hoods. The  statement  that  Jesus  was  born  of  the  virgin 
Mary  either  is  true  or  is  not  true.  If  it  is  not  true,  the 
Spirit  of  God  did  not  inspire  the  record  of  it.  Michael 
may  be  Marduk,  but,  according  to  the  Scriptures,  the 
Spirit  of  Holiness  is  not  the  Father  of  lies. 

3.  No  man  could  possibly  come  into  contact  with  the 
Babylonian  and  Arabian  cults,  and  the  rites  connected 
therewith,  and  preserve  his  ignorance  as  to  the  meaning 
of  the  word  "  virgin.  "  I  can  believe  in  such  innocence,  and 
do  believe  in  it,  but  only  in  connection  with  a  circle  into 
which  the  foul  breath  of  that  monstrous  heathen  worship 
had  never  penetrated.  But,  in  a  man  or  a  group  of  men, 
so  exposed  to  the  contamination  of  heathenism  as  to  come 
under  its  fascination,  such  ignorance  is  inconceivable. 

But  we  have  had  enough  of  this  study.  I  have  reserved 
for  the  end  of  this  chapter  a  statement,  which  I  am 
prepared  to    retract   upon   further    evidence,   but   which 


1 88  GOSPEL  NARRATIVES 

represents  a  very  firm  conviction  based  upon  present 
knowledge.  After  a  careful,  laborious,  and  occasionally 
wearisome  study  of  the  evidence  offered  and  the  analogies 
urged,  I  am  convinced  that  heathenism  knows  nothing  of 
virgin  births.  Supernatural  births  it  has  without  number, 
but  never  from  a  virgin  in  the  New  Testament  sense  and 
never  without  physical  generation,  except  in  a  few  isolated 
instances  of  magical  births  on  the  part  of  women  who  had 
not  the  slightest  claim  to  be  called  virgins.  In  all  recorded 
instances  which  I  have  been  able  to  examine,  if  the  mother 
was  a  virgin  before  conception  took  place  she  could  not 
make  that  claim  afterwards.  The  supernatural  conception 
of  Christ  therefore  was  unique  in  several  particulars  : — 

1.  Christ's  conception  was  in  order  to  incarnation — 
heathen  wonder-births  were  the  result  of  incarnation. 

2.  The  story  combines  a  miraculous  birth  with  a  pure 
spiritualistic  monotheism.  Christ's  birth  was  due  to  the 
creative  agency  of  the  unseen  God — without  the  usual 
human  mediation. 

3.  His  mother  was  at  the  time  of  His  conception  and 
remained  until  after  His  birth  a  virgin.  In  short  the  con- 
ception of  Jesus  was  as  unique  as  the  person  thus  brought 
into  the  world. 


NOTE   TO    CHAPTER   VI 

There  are  three  collateral  items  of  evidence  which  of  themselves  go  a 
long  way  toward  demonstrating  independence  of  heathen  influence  on  the 
part  of  the  Infancy  narratives.  These  three  items  are  the  story  of  the 
Magi,  the  angelology  of  Luke,  and  the  delineation  of  Mary.  These  items 
are  especially  interesting  because  they  occur  just  at  the  points  where  heathen 
influence,  if  present,  would  be  most  clearly  manifest. 

In  the  narrative  of  the  visit  of  the  Magi,  two  difficulties  in  the  way  of  a 
clear  interpretation  of  the  occurrence  have  been  pointed  out.  In  the  first 
place,  the  meaning  of  the  word  (/layoi)  is  obscure  and  confused.  Whether 
these  Magians  were  a  nation,  or  a  sect  or  order,  it  is  practically  impossible  to 
decide.     In  the  second  place,  the  astronomical  occurrence  with  which  their 


THE    THEORY  OF  HEATHEN  INFLUENCE         1 89 

visit  was  connected  has  not  been  clearly  explained.  But  altogether  apart 
from  this,  there  is  one  most  remarkable  quality  exhibited  in  the  story;  namely, 
a  certain  aloofness  or  detachment  of  mind  on  the  part  of  the  writer.  It  has 
been  strenuously  debated  whether  the  word  Magi  is  used  in  a  good  or  bad 
sense.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  it  not  used  in  either  sense.  "  The  Evangelist 
lays  no  stress,  either  on  the  value  of  the  religion  of  the  Magi  in  general  or  on 
its  falsity,  so  that  the  attempts  of  many  ancient  commentators  (Just.  Chrys.; 
Theophil  ;  cf.  J.  Lightfoot,  Hor.  Heb.  ii,  36)  to  press  the  bad  sense  here,  is 
as  irrelevant  to  the  story  in  the  Gospels  as  the  ironical  fears  of  Strauss  for  the 
dogmatic  consequences  of  a  favorable  construction.  The  newly-born  King 
of  the  Jews  receives  homage  from  Eastern  sages ;  their  views  (beyond  the 
reference  to  the  star,  which  does  not  imply  any  opinion  on  astrology  in  gen- 
eral) are  not  touched  upon,  and  therefore  neither  praised  nor  blamed — a 
point  in  which  Mt.  ii  contrasts  with  Sen.  Ep.  58,  where  some  critics  have 
endeavored  to  find  a  parallel."  (Benecke  in  H.  B.  D.,  vol.  iii,  p.  204  b.  On 
the  historicity  of  the  narrative,  see  latter  part  of  same  article.) 

In  other  words,  the  evangelist  tells  his  story  for  what  it  is  worth,  without 
comment.  Certainly  there  is  no  touch  of  heathen  influence.  He  tells  the 
story  in  the  words  of  the  astrologists,  but  his  Hebrew  leanings  are  apparent. 
There  is  no  hint  of  the  heathen  attitude  of  superstitious  reverence  in  the 
presence  of  the  heavenly  bodies.  The  star  points  the  way  to  the  King  who 
is  the  sole  object  of  worship.  The  Magians  of  the  First  Gospel  are  Jewish 
proselytes,  not  heathen,  and  the  evangelist  himself  occupies  the  position  of 
the  Jewish  Messianist  who  would,  of  course,  refer  such  a  celestial  occurrence 
as  described  by  the  strangers  to  the  Messiah.  Every  item  in  the  story  points 
away  from  heathen  influence. 

The  same  is  true  also  of  the  angelology  of  Luke.  The  agency  of  angels 
in  this  narrative  is  made  very  prominent.  It  is  the  more  remarkable,  there- 
fore, when  we  come  to  study  the  account  closely,  to  find  that  it  keeps  so 
rigidly  within  the  lines  of  the  earlier  Old  Testament  representation.  Accord- 
ing to  the  earlier  documents  of  the  Old  Testament,  angels  were  looked 
upon  as  the  visible  manifestations  of  God  in  human  form.  This  was  espe- 
cially true  of  that  mysterious  person,  who  accepts  divine  honors,  and  is  yet 
distinct  from  Jehovah,  known  as  the  angel  of  the  Lord,  the  angel  of  the  face, 
or  the  angel  of  the  covenant.  In  regard  to  him  Prof.  Davidson  (H.  B.  D., 
vol.  i,  p.  94  b)  says  :  "  As  the  manifestation  called  the  angel  of  the  Lord 
occurred  chiefly  in  redemptive  history,  older  theologians  regarded  it  as  an 
adumbration  or  premonition  of  the  incarnation  of  the  Second  Person.  This 
idea  was  just  in  so  far  as  the  angel  of  the  Lord  was  a  manifestation  of  J  " 
on  the  earth  in  human  form,  and  in  so  far  as  such  temporary  manifestations 
might  seem  the  prelude  to  a  permanent  redemptive  self-revelation  in  this 
form  (Mai.  iii,  12)  ;  but  it  was  to  go  beyond  the  Old   Testament,  or  at 


I9O  GOSPEL  NARRATIVES 

least,  beyond  the  understanding  of  Old  Testament  writers,  to  found  in  the 
manifestation  distinctions  in  the  Godhead.  The  only  distinction  implied  is 
that  between  J  "  and  J  "  in  manifestation." 

This  fundamental  idea,  that  the  angel  is  Jehovah  in  manifestation, 
branches  in  two  directions,  giving,  on  the  one  hand,  the  idea  of  a  heavenly 
host,  which  expresses  or  symbolizes  the  Lord's  manifested  glory;  and  on 
the  other,  the  idea  of  God's  messengers  which  expresses  God's  active  going 
forth  to  men.  Under  the  one  or  the  other  of  these  two  essentially  related 
representations,  almost  all  the  earlier  angelology  of  the  Old  Testament  may 
be  summed  up. 

In  the  book  of  Daniel,  however,  we  find  important  modifications  of  the 
primitive  angelology.  As  a  result  partly  of  an  intensified  sense  of  the 
divine  transcendence,  for  "  in  Daniel  God  no  longer  speaks  to  men  directly, 
but  only  through  the  intervention  of  angels,  who  even  interpret  His  written 
word  to  men  (ix,  20) ,' '  and  partly,  perhaps,  owing  to  foreign  influence,  angels 
become  more  distinct  and  more  prominent.  They  are  given  names,  and 
arranged  in  the  ranks  of  a  graduated  hierarchy,  and  in  addition  are  given 
the  task  of  wielding  authority  over  the  nations. 

The  development  of  angelology  in  later  Judaism  has  been  thus  described  : 
"  The  added  prominence  given  to  them  (i.e.,  angels)  in  the  writings  of  such 
prophets  as  Ezekiel  and  Zechariah  was  undoubtedly  due  to  the  fact  that,  as 
Jehovah  was  then  regarded  as  more  exalted  and  farther  removed  from  man, 
messengers  were  required  to  perform  His  will  on  earth  and  to  communicate 
between  Him  and  His  people.  Later,  Judaism  conceived  of  a  highly  devel- 
oped hierarchy  of  angels  ( compare  the  beginning  of  the  conception  in  the 
book  of  Zechariah  and  its  full  development  in  Daniel  and  Enoch). 
Although  the  names  given  to  these  heavenly  beings  are  of  Hebrew  origin, 
the  many  close  points  of  similarity  to  the  Persian  system  suggests  a  more 
direct  influence.  Especially  is  this  conclusion  confirmed  when  we  find  that 
one  of  the  names  of  an  evil  angel  (Asmodeus — Aeshma — daeva)  has  been 
adopted  from  the  Persian  into  Jewish  thought  (Book  of  Tobit)."  (Kent, 
Bab.,  Pers.  and  Grk.  Periods  in  Hist.  J.  P.  Series,  p.  256.) 

Since  the  Jews  already  believed  in  the  agency  and  personality  of  the 
angels,  it  is  only  necessary  to  believe  that  they  adopted  the  foreign  custom 
of  naming  them.  It  is  not  clear  that  they  borrowed  the  names,  while  it  is 
clear  that  the  beings  thus  named  preserved  their  original  biblical  character- 
istics and  offices.  As  Dr.  Plummer  (Com.  on  Lk.,  p.  16)  says:  "  It  is  one 
thing  to  admit  that  such  names  are  of  foreign  origin,  quite  another  to 
assert  that  the  belief  which  they  represent  is  an  importation.  Gabriel,  the 
•  Man  of  God,'  seems  to  be  the  representation  of  angelic  ministry  to  man ; 
Michael,  'who  is  like  God,'  the  representative  of  angelic  opposition  to 
Satan.     In  Scripture  Gabriel  is  the  angel  of  mercy ;  Michael,  the  angel  of 


THE    THEORY  OF  HEATHEN  INFLUENCE         I9I 

judgment.  In  Jewish  legend,  the  reverse  is  the  case,  proving  that  the  Bible 
does  not  borrow  Jewish  fables.  In  the  Targum,  Gabriel  destroys  Sen- 
nacherib's army  ;  in  the  Old  Testament,  he  comforts  Daniel."  However 
this  may  be,  we  have  but  to  turn  to  the  Lucan  narrative  to  find  ourselves  in 
a  thoroughly  Old  Testament  atmosphere.  The  name  Gabriel  (which  had 
undoubtedly  become  the  common  designation  of  the  messenger  of  God)  is 
used  but  to  describe  the  "  Angel  of  the  presence  "  after  the  Old  Testament 
manner.  The  angel  says  to  Zacharias :  "lam  Gabriel  that  stand  in  the 
presence  of  God  (6  irapsori/Kuc;  kvuniov  tov  Aeov)."  Let  the  reader  com- 
pare this  statement  with  Isa.  lxiii,  9,  and  follow  the  Hebrew  words  (  •'"]N30 
and  HJ3  j  through  the  Old  Testament,  and  he  will  at  once  see  how  true  to 
the  deepest  thought  of  the  earlier  revelation  Luke' s  treatment  is. 

The  statement  of  Dr.  Grieve,  therefore,  is  abundantly  justified  by  the  facts: 
"  His  (Gabriel's)  connection  with,  far  less  his  derivation  from,  any  of  the 
Seven  Amshaspends  of  Zoroastrianism,  the  seven  Babylonian  planets,  or  the 
seven  councilors  at  the  Persian  court  (Ezra  vii,  14)  has  not  been  made  out. 
He  is  the  messenger  of  J"  a  characteristic  Jewish  idea,  though  the  number 
of  the  archangels — seven — may  have  been  derived  from  foreign  sources." 
(H.  B.  D.,  vol.  ii,  p.  75#.)  Following  the  angelology  of  the  section  through 
we  find  it  to  be  strictly  of  the  Old  Testament  type.  When  the  angels  ap- 
pear in  the  annunciation  to  the  shepherds  there  is  no  naming,  no  number- 
ing, no  hint  of  hierarchical  graduation  among  them.  It  is  again  the  simple 
idea  of  the  angel  of  the  Lord  as  His  messenger  and  the  heavenly  host  con- 
nected with  the  manifestation  of  His  glory.  The  angels  are  not  unduly 
exalted,  nor  are  they  over  emphasized.  They  do  their  work  and  disappear 
— there  is  no  hint  of  anything  like  divine  honor  being  paid  to  them.  There 
is  no  touch  of  prevalent  exaggeration  so  marked  in  the  heathen  angelologies. 
Still  more  striking,  perhaps,  than  these,  is  the  evidence  afforded  by  the 
delineation  of  Mary  in  both  Infancy  narratives.  If  the  mythological  influ- 
ence is  present,  it  ought  to  exhibit  itself  here  if  anywhere.  In  the  original 
myth  the  mother  must  have  been  as  divine  as  the  child 1 — a  subject  of 
almost  equal  interest.  All  the  professed  mythologists  (Gunkel,  Cheyne, 
etc.)  attempt  to  prove  that  Mary  is  the  equivalent  of  the  tribal  mother, 
or  ancestral  goddess,  or  some  mythological  figure  of  the  sort. 

Now  according  to  the  Infancy  narrative,  the  mother  of  Jesus  is  caught  up 
into  a  cycle  of  supernatural  occurrences — she  is  the  subject  of  experiences 
unique  in  human  annals,  and  yet,  where  can  there  be  found,  in  all  the 
literature  of  the  world  such  an  exquisitely  natural  and  human  portraiture 
as  is  given  of  her  in  this  same  story  ?  There  is  a  haunting  fascination 
about  the  brief  record  of  her  life  which  has  led  captive  the  imagination  of 

1  Except  as  in  Egypt,  when  the  birth  was  meant  to  overcome  the  mother's 
lack  of  royal  position. 


192  GOSPEL  NARRATIVES 

many  generations.  The  record  which  we  have  in  the  Gospels  is  tantaliz- 
ingly  brief  and  so  deficient  in  details.  In  the  narratives  where  she  plays 
so  great  a  part,  she  is  named  but  sixteen  times  and  then  usually  in  mere 

statements  of  fact.     And  the  account  throughout  is  perfectly  consistent it 

is  the  genuine  portrait  of  a  living  person.  She  is  humble,  devout,  and  sub- 
missive. Puzzled  by  what  is  happening  to  her,  a  little  startled  by  the  un- 
usual character  of  her  experiences,  she  is  yet  obedient  to  the  will  of  God. 
She  is  represented  not  only  in  the  Infancy  sections,  but  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment as  a  whole,  as  a  devout  Jewish  Messianist  of  the  old  type.  But  the 
point  is,  she  is  natural,  human,  domestic.  There  is  no  attempt  to  exaggerate 
her  importance.  There  is  no  divine  honor  paid  to  her.  When  the  visitors 
come  they  find  the  child  with  Mary  His  mother,  but  they  worship  the  child. 
She  is  represented  as  the  human  instrument  of  God.  Is  it  not  perfectly 
clear  that  we  have  in  this  narrative  no  disguised  heathen  mythology  but  a 
truthful  representation  in  harmony  with  the  spirit  of  the  Jewish  people  ? 
Mary  is  no  portentous  mythological  figure,  but  a  simple  human  being,  a 
devoted  servant  of  God,  a  loving  mother  faithful  to  her  duties  as  she  under- 
stood them.  The  uniqueness  of  her  historic  task  is  the  cause  of  her  unique 
experience.  There  could  be  but  one  mother  of  the  Messiah.  But  the 
uniqueness  of  her  experience  only  serves  to  emphasize  the  naturalness  of 
the  portraiture  of,her  character. 


CHAPTER  VII 

THE   EXEGETICAL    CONSTRUCTION    OF   THE   SECTIONS 

The  review  to  which,  in  the  preceding  chapters,  we 
have  subjected  the  theories  framed  to  explain  the  origin 
of  the  Infancy  stories  according  to  the  mythical  hypoth- 
esis does  not  tend  to  establish  any  very  firm  ground  of 
confidence  in  the  theories,  nor  in  the  hypothesis  which 
they  are  supposed  to  support.  The  theories,  all  of  which 
are  confidently  put  forth  as  adequate  to  the  solution  of 
the  problem,  are  separately  open  to  serious  objection  and 
unitedly  present,  both  in  outline  and  in  detail,  a  series  of 
divergences,  not  to  say  contradictions,  so  absolute  as  to 
suggest  something  radically  wrong  in  the  general  attitude 
toward  the  whole  subject. 

We  have  not  one  satisfactory,  self-consistent  expla- 
nation of  the  use,  acceptance,  and  circulation  of  the  Gos- 
pel story  of  Christ's  birth  in  the  early  church.  We  have 
not  one  explanation  which  fairly  meets  and  adjusts  the 
facts  of  the  case. 

I  do  not  propose  at  this  point  to  make  any  further 
use  of  the  weaknesses  and  contradictions  of  the  mythical 
theories  than  to  claim  a  hearing  for  the  historic  view.  It 
is  perfectly  evident  to  an  unprejudiced  mind  that  the 
advocates  of  the  mythical  hypothesis  in  all  its  forms  have 
failed  to  establish,  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt,  their  con- 
tention. 

If  these  representative  attempts  of  able  and  learned 
men  to  account  for  the  Infancy  documents,  in  the  suppo- 

13  193 


194  GOSPEL   NARRATIVES 

sition  of  myth,  can  bring  them  into  fundamental  contra- 
diction not  only  as  to  explanations,  but  as  to  the  facts  to 
be  explained,  the  case  lies  far  this  side  of  a  demonstration.1 

The  theory  that  the  Gospel  of  the  childhood  is  histor- 
ical and  trustworthy,  has  a  right  to  be  heard.  It  must  be 
remembered,  however,  that  the  contradictions  in  the  posi- 
tive and  constructive  theories  as  to  how  the  narratives 
arose  does  not  entirely  meet  their  negative  work  in  dis- 
crediting the  documents  as  worthy  of  confidence. 

It  is  a  much  more  difficult  task  than  any  yet  under- 
taken, which  I  have  set  for  myself  in  the  present  chapter; 
namely,  to  attempt  the  exegetical  construction  of  the  In- 
fancy narratives. 

It  is  not  to  be  expected  that  any  such  attempt  shall 
issue  in  the  entire  removal  of  difficulties.  I  hope  to  be 
able  to  show,  however,  that  the  acceptance  of  the  narra- 
tives as  substantially  historical  is  attended  with  less  dif- 
ficulty than  any  other  hypothesis  which  can  be  framed 
to  meet  the  case. 

Let  us  begin  with  the  question  :  Did  Jesus  ever  state 
clearly  that  He  was  born  at  Nazareth  ?  2 

The  narrative  of  the  birth  at  Bethlehem  is  said  to  be 
in  contradiction  to  His  own  express  statements,  in  which 
He  claimed  Nazareth  as  His  native  town. 

This  argument  is  based  upon  the  statement  attributed 
to  Jesus  by  Mark  (vi,  4)  :  "  And  Jesus  said  unto  them, 
A  prophet  is  not  without  honor,  save  in  his  own  country, 
and  among  his  own  kin,  and  in  his  own  house."  This 
same  statement  occurs  in  Luke  ( iv,  24,  25  ).  If  this 
were  found  in  any  document  not  under  suspicion,  would  it 
have  been  interpreted  as  anything  more  than  a  general 
reference  to  the  place  of  His  residence,  and  the  residence 

1  See  also  Note  A.     Historical  Review  of  the  Discussion. 

2  On  this  see  Neander,  L.  C,  p.  28,  note.  (Eng.  Tr.  1851). 


EXEGETICAL    CONSTRUCTION  OF  THE  SECTIONS     195 

of  His  family  ?  How  long,  in  the  first  century,  did  it  take 
for  a  man  to  acquire  a  residence  ?  Jesus  was  brought  to 
Nazareth  as  a  child,  and  had  lived  there  for  the  period  of 
nearly  thirty  years ;  He  might  certainly  speak  of  it  as  "  His 
own  country,  "  even  though  He  was  born  at  Bethlehem. 

Besides,  He  was  making  use  of  a  popular  proverb.  It 
would  be  altogether  unreasonable  to  expect  that  he 
should  accompany  such  an  allusion  with  an  explanation 
of  the  fact  that  He  was  in  reality  born  at  Bethlehem. 
Such  a  statement  would  be  awkward  and  meaningless. 
It  is  to  be  doubted  whether  He  even  thought  of  it  in  that 
connection.  He  certainly  had  no  memory  of  the  stay  at 
Bethlehem,  and  no  conceivable  motive  for  mentioning  it. 

That  there  is  no  essential  contradiction  between  the 
statement  of  Jesus  and  the  narrative  of  the  birth  at  Beth- 
lehem, is  seen  in  Luke's  narrative,  in  which  he  introduces 
the  incident  at  Nazareth  by  the  very  carefully  chosen 
phrase :  "And  He  came  to  Nazareth,  where  He  had  been 
brought  up."1 

This  objection  is  too  frivolous  to  be  worthy  of  notice, 
were  it  not  for  the  fact  that  it  is  related  to  another  of 
much  greater  importance.  Why  did  Jesus  say  nothing 
about  His  supernatural  birth  ?  There  were  numberless 
instances,  when,  in  answer  to  the  taunts  of  His  enemies,  it 
would  have  been  natural  and  proper  for  Him  to  have 
made  a  clear  and  unequivocal  assertion  of  His  unique 
birth.  Why  did  He  not  make  it  ?  I  retort  with  another 
question :  How  could  He  ?  What  good  would  it  have 
done  either  to  the  disciples,  or  to  the  public  ?  What  effect 
would  the  announcement  have  had  upon  those,  who  were 
already  blinded  with  prejudice,  except  to  intensify  that 
prejudice  and  to  put  into  their  hands  a  weapon,  which 
could  be  used  not  only  against  Jesus,  but  against  His 
1  Luke  iv,  16. 


I96  GOSPEL  NARRATIVES 

household  ?  Weiss  is  perfectly  correct,  when  he  says,  "  It 
is  a  most  extraordinary  demand  to  require  Jesus  to  point 
out  the  miracle  of  His  birth  to  the  masses  of  the  people, 
who  remained  unbelieving  in  spite  of  the  miracles 
wrought  among  them  daily,  or  to  require  the  apostles  to 
do  so,  who  proclaimed  the  resurrection  and  exaltation  of 
of  Jesus." 

With  this  question,  is  bound  up  the  still  larger  one  of 
the  time  and  manner  in  which  this  secret  of  Joseph's  house- 
hold was  published  to  the  world. 

We  have  abundant  ground  for  holding  that  the  docu- 
ments embodied  in  the  Infancy  narratives  are  old  by  com- 
parison with  the  rest  of  the  Gospels.  This  does  not 
definitely  determine  the  date  of  their  admittance  into  the 
completed  Gospels,  nor  the  date  when  the  information 
came  into  the  hands  of  the  disciples.  At  this  point,  we 
will  take  for  granted  the  statement  confidently  put  forth 
by  nearly  every  critic  on  the  negative  side  of  this  question 
— that  during  the  lifetime  of  Jesus,  it  was  believed  not 
only  by  the  people  at  large,  but  by  the  circle  of  disciples, 
that  He  was  the  son  of  Joseph  and  Mary. 

Along  with  this  statement,  I  will  place  another  which  I 
believe  to  be  beyond  the  reach  of  successful  denial.  If  the 
story  of  Jesus'  birth  is  authentic  at  all,  it  came  with  more 
or  less  directness  from  the  immediate  family  into  which 
He  was  born.  If  the  story  is  entitled  to  the  least  credence, 
it  can  rest  ultimately  upon  no  other  authority  than  the 
word  of  Joseph  and  Mary. 

The  argument  adduced  by  many  writers  of  the  life  of 
Jesus,  for  attributing  at  least  Luke's  account  to  Mary,  can 
be  broken  only  by  the  supposition  of  deliberate  imposture 
on  the  part  of  the  writer.1 

xSee  Lange,  L.  J.,  vol.  1,   p.  256;   Ramsay,    Was    Christ  born  at  Beth- 
Uhem?  chap.  iv. 


EXEGETICAL    CONSTRUCTION  OF  THE  SECTIONS   I97 

Now  taking  for  granted  again  for  a  moment  that  the 
story  is  actually  authentic  on  the  basis  of  the  statement 
that  Mary  or  Joseph  must  have  been  the  ultimate  author- 
ity, we  can  see  why  the  fact  should  not  have  been  known 
during  the  lifetime  of  Jesus. 

More  than  this,  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  the  fact  that 
the  supernatural  birth  of  Jesus  was  not  believed  during 
His  life,  can  be  accounted  for  on  any  other  basis.  Had  it 
originated  as  a  myth  due  to  a  popular  impression  of  His 
Messianic  greatness,  it  would  naturally  have  taken  its  rise 
and  passed  into  circulation  at  the  time  when  the  popular 
enthusiasm  had  reached  its  height,  and  had  not  been 
dampened  by  the  persistent  hostility  of  the  Jewish  author- 
ities.1 

But  if  the  family  of  Jesus  supplied  the  authority  upon 
which  the  story  was  finally  published,  we  can  readily 
understand  why  it  should  have  been  kept  a  secret  during 
the  lifetime  of  Jesus. 

Mary  was  beset  with  difficulties  of  the  most  practical 
kind.  She  could  not  tell  the  child  Jesus  of  the  wonders 
connected  with  His  birth  without  incurring  the  risk  of 
destroying  the  naturalness  of  His  growth,  and  the  simplicity 
of  His  self-consciousness.  She  could  not  tell  the  other 
children  of  the  home  of  the  circumstances  attending  the 
birth  of  her  first  child  for  obvious  reasons.  She  could  not 
very  well  make  public  the  story  without  danger  of  awaken- 
ing enmities,  which  would  have  imperiled  His  life.  In 
other  words,  she  was  absolutely  compelled  to  silence. 

All  this  was  changed  by  His  death.  He  was  gone  from 
her  ;  the  family  was  broken  up ;  the  malice  of  His  enemies 
could  touch  Him  no  more.     She  would  be  impelled  to  talk 

1  If  the  story  was  not  originated  at  this  time,  it  must  have  arisen  (on  the 
mythical  hypothesis)  very  late  ;  viz.,  after  the  resurrection  and  ascension 
had  made  Christ's  transcendence  clear  to  His  disciples. 


I98  GOSPEL   NARRATIVES 

about  Him,  to  review  His  whole  life,  and  to  recall  and 
recount  the  circumstances  connected  with  Him.1 

Against  the  positive  reasons  for  connecting  this  story 
with  Mary,  certain  arguments  have  been  brought  forward. 
The  principal  one  is  drawn  from  the  perplexity  of  Mary  in 
view  of  what  the  boy  Jesus  said  in  reply  to  her  question  : 
"  Why  hast  thou  thus  dealt  with  us  ?  behold,  thy  father 
and  I  sought  thee  sorrowing."  Jesus  answered  :  "  How  is 
it  that  ye  sought  me  ?  knew  ye  not  that  I  must  be  in  my 
Father's  house?  And  they  understood  not  the  saying 
which  he  spake  unto  them." 2  It  is  asserted  that  this  verse 
not  only  disconnects  Mary  from  the  Infancy  narrative, 
because  it  exhibits  her  in  an  attitude  of  perplexity  in  re- 
gard to  an  utterance  to  which  she  possessed  the  key  in  the 
memories  of  her  Son's  birth,  (which  she  is  said  to  have 
kept  in  her  heart)  but  is  clearly  representative  of  a  tradi- 
tion dating  from  the  time  when  the  miraculous  birth  was 
not  believed. 

The  use  of  this  verse  in  such  a  connection  suggests 
some  questions.  The  sentence  contains  a  statement  con- 
cerning thoughts  in  the  minds  of  Joseph  and  Mary,  which 
could  be  known  only  to  a  novelist  or  to  one  who  had 
received  information  from  the  persons  whose  minds  and 
thoughts  were  thus  unveiled.  That  sentence  was  written 
by  one  who  had  talked  with  Mary,  or  had  received  a 
document  from  Mary  through  some  one  to  whom  it  had 
been  intrusted,  or  else  by  a  writer,  who  was  so  far  from 
the  event  as  merely  to  imagine  for  himself  the  feelings 
which  Mary  might  have  been  supposed  to  have  in  the 
presence  of  Christ's  extraordinary  self-consciousness.  In 
the  former  case,  it  vouches  for  the  historicity  of  the  entire 

1  Note  that  this  applies  to  the  publication  of  the  story.  The  formation 
of  the  story  is  evidently  earlier,  since  the  shadow  of  the  Cross  is  absent. 

2  Luke  ii,  48-50. 


EXEGETICAL    CONSTRUCTION  OF  THE  SECTIONS   1 99 

incident  and  brings  the  writer  into  intimate  contact  with 
the  source  of  authority  ;  in  the  latter,  it  is  a  purely  literary 
device  and  represents  no  tradition  whatever. 

It  is  absurd  on  the  face  of  it  that  a  "  literary  expert "  l 
like  Luke  should  embody  two  contradictory  traditions  in 
the  same  account  when  in  the  fourth  chapter  he  is  so 
careful  to  introduce  what  occurs  at  Nazareth  by  a  phrase 
which  should  carefully  guard  the  fact,  stated  earlier,  that 
Jesus  was  born  at  Bethlehem. 

This  whole  argument  about  divergent  traditions  is  based 
upon  a  misinterpretation  of  the  phrase,  which  Luke  twice 
repeats  in  a  single  chapter  (ii,  19,  51)  that  Mary  kept 
these  sayings  in  her  heart,  pondering  them.  Does  this 
statement  imply  that  Mary  understood  the  meaning  of  all 
that  was  happening,  and  had  arrived  at  such  clear  convic- 
tions that  nothing  extraordinary  in  the  subsequent  life  of 
her  Son  could  surprise  or  puzzle  her  ?  Indeed  the  phrase 
implies  quite  the  contrary.  It  is  perfectly  clear  that  she 
was  greatly  perplexed  by  the  whole  affair,  and  every  new 
incident  added  to  her  wonder  and  perplexity. 

In  fact,  the  passages  which  are  said  to  be  in  contradiction, 
are  parts  of  one  consistent  representation  that  the  events 
before  and  after  the  birth  of  Jesus  made  Mary  deeply  thought- 
ful and  profoundly  perplexed,  so  that  she  kept  revolving 
all  the  facts  in  her  mind  in  order  to  compass  their  meaning.2 

It  is  also  alleged  that  the  attempts  of  Mary  and  the  rest 
of  the  family  to  interfere  Avith  the  Messianic  career  of  Jesus, 
implies  that  they  had  no  inkling  of  the  supernatural  events 
connected  with  His  birth.  It  seems  to  me  that  this  is  a 
peculiarly  inept  and  futile  piece  of  criticism,  in  that  it  reads 
the  evidence  backward. 

Mary  labored  to  the  end  of  Jesus'  life  under  certain 
mental  limitations.     She  occupied  the  Old  Testament  view- 

1  Soltau's    phrase.  2  Cf.  Luke  i,  29  with  ii,  19,  51. 


200  GOSPEL   NARRATIVES 

point  exhibited  in  the  Infancy  document,  and  never  passed 
beyond  it  until  after  the  death  of  Jesus.  There  was  nothing 
in  the  circumstances  of  Jesus'  birth  to  lead  her  to  expect 
in  Him  anything  but  the  fulfillment  of  the  theocratic  hopes 
of  the  circle  in  which  she  moved.  Her  conduct  toward 
Jesus 1  cannot  better  be  explained  than  by  the  supposition 
that  her  expectations  in  Him  were  disappointed.  She  was 
a  thorough  Hebrew  and,  when  she  saw  her  Son  coming 
into  conflict  with  the  authorities  of  her  nation  and  turning 
aside  into  the  narrow  pathway  that  led  toward  inevitable 
death,  she,  like  the  disciples,  was  troubled,  perplexed, 
grieved,  and  driven  by  her  painful  solicitude  to  acts  that 
were  indiscreet  and  unpleasant.2  There  is  absolutely 
nothing  here  that  argues  that  Mary  did  not  know  the  inci- 
dents recorded  by  Matthew  and  Luke — certainly  nothing 
that  has  any  weight  compared  with  the  positive  reasons 
for  believing  that  Mary  was  herself  the  authority  upon 
which  Luke  based  his  story.  Moreover,  the  attitude  of 
Mary  to  Jesus  at  the  wedding  in  Cana  implies  an  expecta- 
tion of  something  wonderful  from  her  Son  which  the  events 
of  the  silent  period  at  Nazareth  do  not  seem  to  justify. 
Whence  came  her  evident  Messianic  expectations  ?  3 

Before  going  further,  I  wish  to  consider  a  little  this 
question  of  a  divergent  tradition  concerning  the  manner 
of  Christ's  birth.  It  is  alleged  that  there  was  a  continuous 
tradition,  dating  from  the  lifetime  of  Christ  and  extending 
onward  indefinitely  into  the  second  century,  when  it  be- 
comes a  strenuous  contention  that  Jesus  was  begotten  and 
born  just  as  other  men.  This,  it  is  maintained,  is  the  con- 
sistent, continuous,  genuine,  apostolic  tradition. 

Now  I  admit  that  there  were  two  traditions,  one  current 
popularly,  and  among  the  disciples  during  the  lifetime  of 
Jesus,  and  the  other  in   Jewish-Christian  circles    dating 

1Johnii,  3,  5.  *  Matt,  xii,  47.     Mk.iii.3i.  s  John  ii,  3-5. 


EXEGETICAL    CONSTRUCTION  OF  THE  SECTIONS  201 

from  the  promulgation  of  the  Gospel  of  Matthew,  that 
Jesus  was  the  son  of  Joseph  and  Mary.  These  two  tradi- 
tions were  one  in  the  opinion  held  concerning  the  origin 
of  Jesus,  but  absolutely  different  in  the  ground  upon  which 
the  opinion  rested,  and  in  the  apostolic  standing  of  the 
persons  who  held  it. 

In  the  first  instance,  the  opinion,  which  was  common  to 
the  disciples  during  the  lifetime  of  Jesus,  rested  upon 
natural  inference  from  the  relationship  of  Jesus  to  the 
household  of  Joseph  and  Mary,  in  the  absence  of  authori- 
tative information  to  the  contrary.  The  later  opinion  rested 
upon  dogmatic  prepossession,  was  held  in  opposition  to 
definite  teaching,  and  was  inextricably  interwoven  with 
heretical  views  as  to  the  person  and  work  of  Christ.  This 
opinion  was  held  first  by  Ebionite  Judaizers, 1  who  were 
the  bitter  and  relentless  foes  of  Paul,  and  later  by  Gnos- 
tics,3 represented  by  Cerinthus,  who  was  so  strenuously 
opposed  to  John  at  Ephesus. 

It  will  take  very  positive  evidence  to  convince  any 
thoughtful  mind  that  Paul  shared  the  views  of  those  men, 
who  forced  him  to  spend  so  many  years  in  the  unwelcome 
task  of  controversy,  who  embittered  his  life  and  did  all 
they  could  to  destroy  his  work,  who  were  present  to  his 
mind  under  the  threefold  representation — "  The  dogs  .  .  . 
the  evil  workers  .   .    .   the  concision." 3 

It  is  no  less  difficult  to  believe  that  John  agreed  in  the 
denial  of  the  supernatural  birth  with  Cerinthus,  against 
whose  heresies  he  expended  the  very  last  strength  of  mind 
and  body,  in  sincere  loyalty  to  the  person  and  dignity  of 
his  Lord. 

It  is  simply  inconceivable  that  any  apostle,  or  any  dis- 
ciple of  an  apostle,  or  any  Christian,  who  held  the  faith  in 

1  See  Church  Histories  under  Ebionites. 

2  See  Ch.  Histories  under  Gnostics.  3  Phil,  iii,  2. 


202  GOSPEL   NARRATIVES 

its    entirety,    should    have   become    a    sharer    in    such 
views. 

The  belief  that  Jesus  was  the  son  of  Joseph  and  Mary 
does  not  represent  the  mature  views  of  any  known  apostle. 
The  statement  that  this  belief  constitutes  "  the  true  Gos- 
pel, as  transmitted  to  us  by  the  apostles  and  their  school 
in  the  Apostolic  age,"  1  is  not  only  without  adequate  basis, 
but  also  violates  every  probability  of  the  case. 

If  it  be  true  that  the  belief  in  the  natural  derivation  of 
Jesus  from  Joseph  was  general  during  the  lifetime  of 
Christ,  we  have  to  account  for  the  change  of  opinion  on 
the  part  of  at  least  the  dominant  element  among  the  apos- 
tles and  their  disciples,  who  were  under  the  influence  of 
John  and  acquainted  with  the  family  of  Jesus — a  change 
of  opinion  which  resulted  in  the  firm  establishment  of  the 
doctrine  in  the  official  documents  and  formal  confessions 
of  the  church  by  the  close  of  the  first  century. 

Moreover,  this  revolution  was  accomplished  in  spite  of 
continuous  and  influential  opposition,  and  in  the  midst  of 
controversy.  In  addition  to  all  this,  we  have  no  hint  that 
in  the  controversy  any  genuine  facts  were  brought  forward, 
such  as  negative  criticism  assumes  that  there  must  have 
been,  but  only  a  priori  objections  such  as  that  of  Cerinthus 
that  it  was  "  impossible. " 2 

In  view  of  these  considerations,  that  early  and  authori- 
tative tradition  concerning  the  natural  birth  of  Jesus  fades 
away,  and  loses  much  of  its  coherence. 

It  may  safely  be  asserted  that  there  is  more  of  a  historic 
process  evident  here  than  can  possibly  be  accounted  for  on 
any  mythical  hypothesis. 

We  next  come  to  the  question  :     Why  were  there  two 

accounts  at  all  ?     To  this,  the  answer  is  to  be  made  that 

there  are  two  contrasted  phases  of  the  historic  event,  one 

1Soltau,  p.  65.     2See  Lange,  vol.  i,  p.  281  ;  Strauss,  L.  J.,  vol.  i,  p.  182. 


EXEGETICAL    CONSTRUCTION  OF  THE  SECTIONS  203 

of  which  may  be  called  the  Jewish-theocratic  phase,  the 
other,  the  broadly  human  or  universal  phase. 

The  birth  of  Christ  had  a  relationship  to  prophecy,  and 
a  significance  in  connection  with  the  historic  hope  of  the 
Jews ;  it  had  also  a  connection  with  universal  history,  and 
a  special  significance  for  all  mankind. ' 

These  two  contrasted  sides  of  this  historic  occurrence 
would  compel  two  very  different  modes  of  exposition. 2 

This  they  have  received  at  the  hands  of  Matthew  and 
Luke.  I  venture  the  assertion  that  the  accounts  do  not 
differ  from  each  other  more  than  any  two  accounts  of  a 
series  of  related  events,  told  under  the  influence  of  a 
different  dominant  interest  and  for  different  readers. 

It  is  to  be  seen  at  a  glance  that  Luke's  account  would 

1  The  difficulty  involved  in  the  existence  of  two  accounts  really  goes  a 
little  deeper  than  this,  but  it  is  met  by  precisely  similar  considerations.  On 
the  supposition  that  the  two  accounts  are  both  derived  from  family  narra- 
tives, why  should  there  be  two  stories  differing  so  much  in  details  ?  To 
begin  with,  are  we  sure  that  the  two  narratives  differ  so  greatly  as  we  are 
accustomed  to  think  ? 

It  has  seemed  to  me  that  every  formidable  difficulty  involved  in  the  two 
stories  is  met  by  the  simple  and  natural  consideration  that  Luke's  narrative 
follows  the  natural  order  of  events,  and  Matthew's  treats  of  an  episode  or 
group  of  episodes  entirely  aside  from  the  main  events.  Behind  the  fact 
that  the  events  narrated  by  Luke  were  those  which  would  naturally  appeal 
to  him,  and  that  the  events  in  Matthew  are  those  which  would  most  deeply 
interest  him,  lies  the  deeper  fact  that  the  events  told  by  Matthew  are  those 
which  would  naturally  interest  Joseph,  and  those  of  Luke  constitute  the  real 
viewpoint  of  Mary.  Joseph  was  the  head,  guide,  and  protector  of  the 
family  and  would  naturally  remember  and  relate  the  incident  in  which  the 
safety  of  the  child  intrusted  to  him  was  imperiled.  On  the  other  hand, 
Mary  was  protected,  and  in  the  safety  of  her  husband's  care  gave  very  little 
heed  to  outside  events.  It  was  the  great  fact  which  made  its  impression 
upon  her  mind.  The  goodness  of  God  and  the  greatness  of  her  promised 
Son  made  up  the  sum  of  her  thoughts.  The  natural  history  of  the  docu- 
ments and  their  sources  lies  upon  the  surface.  They  represent  a  twofold 
viewpoint  on  the  part  of  the  evangelists  and  also  the  members  of  Joseph's 
household. 

2  See  Weiss,  L.  J.,  vol.  i,  p.  224. 


204  GOSPEL   NARRATIVES 

not  fit  into  a  scheme  of  Matthew's  Gospel  at  all,  nor  would 
it  suit  his  purpose.  Matthew's  one  undeviating  purpose 
was  to  interpret  Christ  to  his  countrymen,  and  it  was  his 
peculiar  delight  to  take  items  in  Christ's  life  naturally 
offensive  to  a  Jew,  and  lift  them  up  in  such  a  way  into 
relationship  with  the  theocratic  hope  as  to  make  them 
acceptable  to  one  with  Jewish  prepossessions.  In  accord- 
ance with  this  predominant  interest,  he  takes  incidents 
from  the  carefully  cherished  traditions  of  the  childhood 
— the  birth  from  a  virgin,  the  birth  at  Bethlehem,  the 
attempt  of  Herod  and  the  flight  into  Egypt,  the  residence 
at  Nazareth,  every  item  of  which,  except  the  birth  at 
Bethlehem,  would  be  offensive  to  a  strict  Jew — and  so 
illumines  them  with  prophetic  lights  as  to  make  them 
shine  with  all  the  brightness  of  that  hope  which  had 
endured  since  Abraham's  day. 

Of  this  character,  there  is  nothing  in  Luke's  account. 
He  is  so  true  to  his  sources  that  their  strong  Hebraic 
character  shines  through  the  Greek,  but  he  has  nothing 
to  say  of  prophecy,  and  gives  no  heed  to  purely  Jewish 
prejudices.  More  serious  still,  he  leaves  the  marvelous 
story  absolutely  unguarded.  He  speaks  of  Mary  as  the 
betrothed  of  Joseph,1  and  says  nothing  concerning  their 
subsequent  marriage.  Indeed,  Luke's  account  exhibits 
throughout  a  naive  unconsciousness  that  the  story  could 
give  offense,  evidently  trusting  to  its  transparent  simplicity 
and  purity  to  lift  it  above  suspicion. 

Matthew's  account,  on  the  contrary,  in  accordance  with 
his  general  apologetic  aim,  exhibits  the  definite  purpose  to 
guard  the  tradition  at  every  point.  He  shows  that  Joseph 
was  as  definitely  chosen  to  the  task  of  guarding  the  honor 
of  Mary  and  the  safety  of  Jesus  as  Mary  was  chosen  to 
become  the  mother  of  the  Messiah.    He  brings  Joseph  for- 

1  Luke  ii,  5. 


EXEGETICAL    CONSTRUCTION  OF  THE  SECTIONS    205 

ward  as  the  representative  of  the  house  of  David,  and  uses 
his  genealogy  in  the  assured  confidence  that  this  reputed 
descent  assures  the  right  of  Jesus  to  David's  throne,  and 
also  establishes  His  unstained  origin.  This  method  of  pro- 
claiming to  the  Jewish  public  the  miraculous  birth  of  the 
Messiah  formed  about  its  central  mystery  a  defense  proof 
against  misunderstanding  and  even  calumny,  except  on 
the  part  of  those  who  already  hated  Christ  with  bitterness, 
and  were  without  scruple  in  seeking  weapons  against 
Him.  I  maintain  that  the  whole  character  and  purpose 
of  Matthew's  statement  is  as  strong  a  guarantee  as  one 
could  possibly  find  of  its  genuineness  and  authenticity. 

The  assertion  that  the  genealogy,  and  the  account  of 
the  miraculous  birth,  are  fragments  of  divergent  traditions, 
loosely  pieced  together,  seems  to  me  to  exhibit  an  almost 
hopeless  misunderstanding  of  the  situation.  The  two 
apparently  contradictory  statements  are  united  by  the 
purpose  of  the  narrator,  who  has  seen  the  bearing  of  the 
one  upon  the  other,  and  in  his  skillful  apologetic  use 
makes  the  faithfulness  of  Joseph  a  defense  for  the  mirac- 
ulous birth. 

In  Luke's  account,  which,  in  this  respect  at  least,  pre- 
supposes Matthew's,  there  is  no  apologetic  purpose  evi- 
dent. He  gives  the  intimate,  domestic  side  of  the  occur- 
rences in  a  manner  altogether  unexplainable,  except  upon 
the  understanding  that  he  had  in  his  possession  what  he 
supposed  to  be  direct  family  reminiscences.  One  element 
of  its  perennial  charm  lies  in  the  straightforward,  uncon- 
scious simplicity  with  which  the  story  is  told.  And  it 
must  be  confessed  that  its  purity  has  been  its  own  defense, 
no  less  effective  to  those  who  do  not  share  the  Jewish 
feeling  than  Matthew's  more  formal  and  elaborate  method. 
We  have  then  a  reasonable  explanation  of  the  existence 
of  two  different  accounts  of  the  events  connected  with  the 


206  GOSPEL   NARRATIVES 

infancy  of  Jesus.  How  far  can  the  two  accounts  be  fairly 
harmonized  ?  In  statements  of  fact,  the  two  accounts  con- 
verge upon  six  points, — the  birth  from  a  virgin,  the  name 
Jesus,  the  birth  at  Bethlehem,  the  Davidic  descent,  the 
reign  of  Herod,  and  the  residence  at  Nazareth.  Of  these 
six  concurrent  statements,  the  Davidic  descent  and  the 
residence  at  Nazareth  and  the  general  date  are  not 
questioned.  The  accounts  diverge  in  the  matter  of  the 
genealogies,  on  the  point  of  the  residence  at  Nazareth 
previous  to  the  birth  of  Jesus,  and  in  certain  positive 
statements  made  by  Luke  and  omitted  by  Matthew. 
In  addition  to  this,  we  have  the  difficulty  of  adjust- 
ing statements  like  those  of  Paul  concerning  the  Davidic 
descent,  which  is  supposedly  dependent  upon  inheritance 
through  the  male  line,  with  the  assertion  of  the  virgin 
birth.  We  are  thus  led  into  the  very  heart  of  the  diffi- 
culties which  are  urged  against  the  accounts. 

Let  us  take  up  first  the  knotty  question  of  the  genealogies. 
In  the  attempt  to  solve  the  problem  presented  by  the 
genealogical  lists,  I  shall  lay  down  a  series  of  propositions, 
which  seem  to  me  individually  defensible,  and  which  as  a 
whole  lead  to  very  clear  results  and  satisfactory  con- 
clusions. 

The  first  proposition  is  that  the  genealogies  are  not 
vitally  essential  to  the  general  discussion.  They  have 
been  inserted  in  the  account  to  prove  the  Davidic  descent 
of  Jesus.  That  fact  stands  secure  without  the  genealogies. 
The  general  fact  of  family  connection  and  descent  is  one 
thing ;  the  detailed  exhibition  and  proof  of  that  connection 
by  genealogical  lists  is  quite  another.  Family  pedigrees 
are  proverbially  uncertain.  And  one  who  has  ever  had 
any  dealings  with  long  lists  of  names  is  aware  of  the 
difficulty  of  keeping  them  correct.  In  the  ancient  days  of 
copying  manuscripts,  it  must  have  been  well-nigh  impos- 


EXEGETICAL    CONSTRUCTION   OF  THE  SECTIONS  2QJ 

sible  to  keep  the  genealogies  free  from  error.  It  would 
not  be  surprising,  therefore,  if  the  genealogy  of  Jesus 
should  present  many  difficulties.  It  may  be  that  the 
difficulties  are  insuperable  with  our  present  imperfect 
knowledge.  But  this  does  not  shake  the  certainty  that 
Jesus  was  descended  from  David.  The  proof  for  this  is 
overwhelming.  As  Lange  says  :  "  As  far  as  the  relation 
of  the  genealogies  in  Matthew  and  Luke  to  the  doctrine 
of  Christ's  descent  from  David  is  concerned,  it  must  first 
be  firmly  laid  down,  that  this  doctrine  is  entirely  inde- 
pendent of  their  construction.  In  a  genuine  and  powerful 
family  tradition,  the  tradition  is  not  supported  by  the 
genealogy,  but  the  genealogy  by  the  tradition."  l 

Professor  Bacon  is  unfavorable  to  the  historic  accuracy 
of  the  genealogies,  and  cannot  be  said  to  be  very  firmly 
attached  to  the  belief  that  Jesus  was  actually  of  Davidic 
descent,  yet  he  makes  a  strong  exhibition  of  the  reasons 
for  believing  that  the  acceptance  of  that  belief  was  prac- 
tically universal  during  the  lifetime  of  Jesus  and  immedi- 
ately after.  He  says : 2  "If  the  progress  of  critical  and 
exegetical  science  has  shown,  on  the  one  side,  the  futility 
of  all  harmonistic  theories  for  rescuing  the  authority  of 
the  pedigrees,  it  has  more  than  compensated  for  the  loss, 
by  establishing,  with  equal  certainty,  the  acceptance  of  the 
fact  of  the  Davidic  descent  of  Jesus  by  Himself,  His  con- 
temporaries, and  His  immediate  followers." 

It  is  not  necessary  to  exhibit  the  proofs  of  this  in  detail. 
It  is  admitted  with  practical  unanimity  that  Jesus  could 
never  have  won  any  recognition  of  His  claim  to  the  throne 
of  His  ancestors  without  furnishing  to  His  contemporaries 
convincing  evidence  of  His  heirship.  The  real  difficulty, 
however,  lies  deeper,  in  that  it  appears  as  if  this  conceded 
claim   rested   entirely  upon  the   reputed   relationship  to 

1  L.  J.,  vol.  i,  p.  301,  note.  2  Hastings,  B.  D.,  vol.  ii,  p.  138. 


208  GOSPEL   NARRATIVES 

Joseph,  and  collides  fatally  with  the  doctrine  of  the  virgin 
birth.  This  question  has  yet  to  be  met.  The  certainty 
that  Jesus  sprang  from  the  family  of  David  does  not  carry 
with  it  assurance  concerning  the  accuracy  of  the  genealog- 
ical lists.  There  were  evidently  discrepant  lists  of  relation- 
ships and  descents  within  the  same  family.  This  seems  to 
account  for  one  discrepancy  between  Matthew  and  Luke : 
"  according  to  Matthew,  Zerubbabel,  the  son  of  Salalthiel, 
was  through  Solomon,  descended  from  the  kingly  line 
(i,  7-12),  while  Luke  represents  him  as  springing  from  an 
allied  branch  connected,  through  Nathan,  with  David 
(iii,  27-31). 

No  attempt  of  apologetics  or  criticism  to  resolve  or 
explain  this  difference  can  meet  with  much  success.  All 
that  we  can  ascertain  is,  that  a  discrepant  genealogical 
tradition  has  been  employed  here,  the  circumstances  of 
whose  origin  we  are  no  longer  in  a  position  to  indicate 
with  certainty."  x  This  discrepancy,  however,  involves  us 
in  uncertainty  as  to  how  the  lineage  of  Jesus  is  traceable 
to  David — it  does  not  touch  the  fact.  However  the  gene- 
alogies may  diverge,  the  Davidic  origin  of  Jesus  would 
still  be  secure.  If  one  or  both  genealogies  were  in  part 
or  in  whole  incorrect,  we  should  still  be  compelled  to 
assume,  on  the  basis  of  the  evidence,  that  Jesus  was  the 
son  of  David,  although  the  attempt  to  prove  Him  such  by 
the  genealogical  lists  was  a  failure. 

My  second  proposition  is  that  lists,  which  differ  so  utterly 
that  only  two  names  are  the  same  in  both  lists  between 
David  and  Jesus,  cannot  be  interpreted  as  imperfect  at- 
tempts to  embody  the  same  ancestral  lines.  The  discrep- 
ancy is  too  great.  If  the  lists  were  nearly  alike,  differing 
here  and  there  in  a  name,  we  might  look  upon  them  as 
imperfect  attempts  to  accomplish  the  same  thing,  but 
1  Weiss,  L.  J.,  vol.  i,  p.  217. 


EXEGETICAL    CONSTRUCTION  OF  THE   SECTIONS    209 

when  they  differ  altogether,  with  the  exceptions  of  two 
names,  this  supposition  is  too  difficult.  We  may  account 
with  Weiss  for  the  divergence  back  from  Zerubbabel  and 
Salalthiel  as  due  to  "  discrepant  genealogical  traditions." 
Is  it  reasonable  to  suppose  that  the  divergence  on  this 
side  the  meeting  point  is  due  also  to  a  different  tradition  ? 
This,  to  say  the  least,  is  a  most  remarkable  coincidence. 
Moreover,  Matthew's  genealogy  is  constructed  for  a  defi- 
nite purpose.  The  theory  advocated  by  Lord  Hervey 
and  others,  so  far  as  it  relates  to  Matthew,  may  be 
accepted,  that  the  first  evangelist  attempts  to  trace  the 
theocratic  birthright  of  Jesus   through  Joseph  to  David. 

This  fits  in  with  his  apologetic  purpose,  for  which  the 
adoptive  relationship  to  Joseph  would  be  entirely  suffi- 
cient.1 Bacon  holds  that  in  the  use  of  the  word  iyivvqaev, 
Matthew  means  "  actual  physical  descent,"  and  that  he 
has  mistakenly  assumed  that  the  royal  succession,  as  was 
usually  true,  was  by  natural  descent  from  father  to  son. 

This  appears  to  me  very  doubtful,  for  it  is  likely  that 
Matthew  is  simply  following  the  genealogical  formula, 
but,  if  true,  it  is  not  a  serious  matter — the  inheritance  is  a 
reality  whether  relationship  in  the  succession  is  real  or 
merely  legal.2     The   whole  character  of  the  genealogy 

1  Hastings  B.  D.,  Art.  Genealogy,  vol.  ii,  p.  139. 

2  Holtzmann  (L.  J.,  p.  82)  argues  :  "If  Jesus  was  not  the  son  of  Joseph 
according  to  the  flesh,  both  of  the  genealogies  fall  to  the  ground.  For  the 
essential  purpose  of  a  genealogy  is  to  show  blood  relationship."  In  like 
manner,  Pere  Didon  {Jesus  Christ,  vol.  ii,  pp.  421  seq. )  holds  that  "the 
Christ  was  to  be  something  more  than  the  formal  heir  of  the  great  King  ; 
He  was  to  be  actually  of  the  blood  of  David  as  well  as  of  the  blood  of  Abra- 
ham.    Of  this,  I  think,  there  cannot  be  the  smallest  doubt." 

Irenseus  argues  (Con.  Haer.,  Bk  iii,  Chap.  21,  sec.  9),  that  if  Jesus  had 
been  derived  from  Joseph  He  could  not  have  been  the  heir,  for  Jechoniah 
(Matt,  i,  12)  had  been  disinherited.  The  passage  upon  which  Irenseus 
bases  his  contention  is  Jeremiah  xxii,  28,  in  which  it  is  stated  that  Jech- 
oniah (Coniah  in  Jer.)  should  be  written  childless,  "a  man  that  shall  not 
14 


2IO  GOSPEL  NARRATIVES 

lends  strong  confirmation  to  Godet's  contention  that  Mat- 
thew's Infancy  section  is  not  to  be  interpreted  as  a  histor- 

prosper  in  his  days ;  for  no  more  shall  a  man  of  his  seed  prosper,  sitting 
upon  the  throne  of  David,  and  ruling  in  Judah  (ver.  30). 

This  does  not  prove  that  Jechoniah  did  not  have  children  (see  H.  B.  D., 
vol.  ii,  p.  557 ),  therefore  does  not  touch  upon  the  difficulty  raised  by  Holtz- 
mann.  But  whether  childless  or  not  Jechoniah  was  the  last  king  of 
David's  line.  ...  On  the  legal  genealogies  Shealtiel  who  was 
descended  from  David  through  his  son  Nathan  is  counted  as  his  son,  but 
neither  he  nor  Zerubbabel  prospered  so  as  to  sit  on  David's  throne,  etc. 
(see  Speaker's  Commentary,  Jeremiah  ad ' loc).  The  question  remains,  how- 
ever, whether  the  derivation  of  Christ  through  the  disinherited  Jechoniah 
would  not  in  Jewish  eyes  constitute  as  much  an  element  of  offense  as  a 
break  in  the  blood  relationship.  This  point  in  the  genealogy  should  make 
one  pause  before  asserting  that  in  all  particulars  the  gospel  genealogies  are 
made  in  conformity  with  Jewish  prejudice.  There  is  at  any  rate  a  question 
whether  Shealtiel  was  anything  more  than  the  legal  or  adoptive  son  of 
Jechoniah.  It  must  be  conceded  that  in  troubled  times  such  as  preceded, 
accompanied,  and  followed  the  Captivity,  family  lines  would  be  endangered, 
and  adoptive  or  putative  relationships  would  be  necessarily  employed  to 
bridge  gaps  in  blood  relationship.  The  appearance  of  the  two  names, 
Shealtiel  and  Zerubbabel,  in  both  genealogies  points  to  something  of  this 
character.  We  are  thus  afforded  escape  in  one  direction  from  the  difficulty 
urged  by  Holtzmann. 

In  point  of  fact  the  legal  relationship  of  Jesus  to  Joseph  would  satisfy  the 
requirement  of  the  average  Jewish  mind. 

Holtzmann  also  urges  that  "  it  is  clear  that  there  existed  no  certain  knowl- 
edge as  to  the  descent  of  Jesus  from  the  house  of  David." 

It  may  be  that  this  statement  is  correct,  though  it  is  extremely  improbable. 
On  the  other  hand  it  is  beyond  question  that  there  was  among  the  disciples, 
both  of  the  apostolic  age  and  the  age  following,  the  practically  unanimous 
conviction  that  Jesus  was  of  the  house  of  David.  (See  H.  D.  B.,  Article 
Genealogy  N.  T. )  Whence  was  this  conviction  derived,  and  upon  what  did 
it  rest  ?  In  addition  to  what  is  said  in  the  text  I  wish  to  suggest  certain 
other  considerations.  In  the  first  place,  it  is  probable  that  the  belief  in  the 
Davidic  origin  of  Jesus  rested  upon  the  general  knowledge  among  the  dis- 
ciples that  the  family  of  Joseph  belonged  to  the  house  of  David. 

In  the  second  place,  it  is  undoubtedly  the  fact  that  the  belief  in  the 
Davidic  origin  of  Jesus  rested  upon  the  same  authority  as  the  Infancy  narra- 
tive in  general,  and  was  connected  with  the  sources  upon  which  this  is  based. 

In  the  third  place,  the  conclusion  seems  inevitable  that  the  general  diffu- 
sion among  believers  of  the  belief  that  Jesus  was  born  of  the  house  of  David 


EXEGETICAL    CONSTRUCTION  OF  THE  SECTIONS    211 

ical  chronicle,  but  as  "  a  didactic  exposition, " J  embody- 
ing historical  incidents. 

This  seems  to  me  fairly  to  explain  the  character  and 
construction  of  Matthew's  genealogy.     What  of  Luke's  ? 

must  have  been  the  accompaniment  or  result  of  the  publication  of  the  Gos- 
pels. In  view  of  these  more  than  probable  connections  we  are  shut  up  to 
two  conclusions.  Either  the  legal  relationship  between  Jesus  and  Joseph 
was  sufficient  to  satisfy  the  minds  of  the  disciples,  or  else  Mary  was  con- 
sidered a  descendant  of  David.  It  seems  to  me  that  both  these  things  are 
probably  true.  In  view  of  the  presence  of  Jechoniah  in  the  genealogy,  as 
well  as  other  features  of  Matthew's  version,  it  is  extremely  probable  that  the 
adoptive  fatherhood  of  Joseph  was  entirely  sufficient  to  justify  and  guarantee 
Jesus'  royal  position.  In  addition  to  this,  certain  peculiarities  of  Luke's 
genealogy  lend  force  to  the  conclusion  that  Mary  was  of  the  house  of 
David.  In  support  of  this  belief  is  the  very  old  and  general  tradition  to 
that  effect.  The  relationship  of  certain  statements  in  John's  Gospel  to  this 
question  is,  perhaps,  deserving  of  a  little  fuller  discussion  that  it  has  received 
in  the  text.  Holtzmann  says  :  "  The  Johannine  Gospel  says  distinctly,  that 
in  Jerusalem  exception  was  taken  to  Jesus'  Galilaean  origin  :  '  Hath  not  the 
Scripture  said,'  etc., — (Jno.  vii,  42).  Yet  the  evangelist  does  not  by  so  much 
as  a  single  word  say  that  Jesus  really  was  descended  from  David  or  that 
He  actually  was  born  in  Bethlehem.  Of  these  things  he  knows  nothing  or 
else  he  considers  the  tradition  which  relates  it  to  be  false."  Now,  this  posi- 
tion is  certainly  untenable.  It  makes  of  John  a  most  unaccountable  excep- 
tion to  his  Christian  brethren  to  suppose  that  he  was  ignorant  of  the  tradi- 
tion or  in  opposition  to  it.  Certainly  if  John  had  been  a  disbeliever  in  the 
tradition,  he  would  surely  have  indicated  by  so  much  as  a  word  that  the 
whole  contention  of  the  Jews  that  Jesus  must  be  of  the  house  of  David  and 
a  Bethlehemite  by  birth,  was  absurd  and  unnecessary.  A  glance  at  the 
story  will  show  that  no  such  meaning  can  be  attached  to  it.  John  simply 
gives  one  half  of  a  debate.  Some  said,  "  This  is  the  Christ."  But  others 
opposed  this  on  the  ground  that  Jesus  was  a  Galilsean,  whereas  the  Christ 
must  be  of  the  house  of  David.  Now  John,  without  pausing  to  give  the  per- 
fectly obvious  retort  to  this  objection,  simply  sums  up  the  incident  by  saying, 
"So  there  arose  a  division  in  the  multitude  because  of  him"  (ver.  43. 
Why  this  omission  ?  Because  it  was  a  commonplace  of  the  Gospel  narrative. 
Every  person  for  whom  John  was  writing  could  supply  the  missing  answer 

'Com.  on  Luke,  Standard  Am.  Ed.,  1881,  p.  95.  Note  also  mnemonic 
quality  of  Matthew's  genealogy — five  groups  of  fourteen  names  each — cor- 
responding to  five  groups  of  sayings  introduced  by  formulae.  See  Matt,  vii, 
28;  xix,  i;  xxvi,  1,  etc.  Cf.  Morrison,  Com.  on  Matt.,  p.  7. 


212  GOSPEL  NARRATIVES 

It  is  not  surprising  that  many  have  held  that  this  latter  is 
Mary's.  To  give  her  genealogy  would  be  in  harmony 
with  the  general  character  of  Luke's  narrative  of  the  In- 
fancy in  that  the  entire  story  otherwise  centers  about  her. 

out  of  the  other  Gospels.  John  gives  the  incident  simply  as  a  sample  of 
the  arguments  used  against  Christ,  and  undoubtedly  as  an  exhibition  of  the 
narrow-minded  ineptness  shown  by  the  Judaeans  at  every  point  of  the  debate. 

In  this  connection,  Schmiedel's  remarks  (Ency.  Biblica,  Art.  Gospels  24) 
are  worthy  of  note.  He  comments  on  Westcott's  remark  on  Jno.  vii,  42, 
"There  is  a  tragic  irony  in  the  fact  that  the  condition  which  the  objectors 
ignorantly  assumed  to  be  unsatisfied,  i.  <•.,  birth  in  Bethlehem,  was  actually 
satisfied."  He  says :  "Are  we  to  believe  that  Jesus  knew  that  the  condition 
was  satisfied,  and  yet  left  the  objectors  in  their  ignorance  so  as  to  keep  back 
from  them  the  fulfillment  of  God' s  word,  making  Himself  responsible  for  the 
tragic  consequences?  "  In  enswer  to  this,  it  is  needful  to  say  nothing  more 
than  this.  There  would  be  no  "tragic  irony"  involved  in  the  incident 
unless  the  objectors  had  every  opportunity  to  acquaint  themselves  with  the 
facts,  and  declined  to  make  use  of  them.  There  is  no  reason  to  suppose, 
(indeed  there  is  every  reason  to  suppose  the  contrary)  that  the  disciples  made 
no  answer  to  the  objection  thus  urged.  John  doesn't  mention  their  answer 
because  there  is  no  need.  He  is  simply  recording  objections,  not  the  answers 
to  them,  especially  answers  that  were  perfectly  obvious.  There  is  no  hint 
in  the  record  of  a  conspiracy  of  silence  on  the  part  of  anybody.  The  inci- 
dent has  no  significance  whatever  apart  from  the  supposition  that  the  objectors 
might  have  known  the  truth  if  they  wished  to.  Moreover,  why  should  any- 
body suppose  that  Jesus  Himself  had  any  part  in  the  debate  on  either  side  ? 

John  records  what  the  multitude  said  about  Him — not  what  was  said  to 
Him.  That  this  objection  to  His  Messiahship  was  persistently  and  publicly 
urged,  is  evidence  enough  that  the  question  must  have  been  honestly  and 
openly  met.  I  have  elsewhere  urged  that  no  Jewish  inquirer  concerning 
the  claims  of  Jesus  could  have  been  satisfied  without  a  setdement  of  this 
point.  The  disciples  must  have  been  convinced,  and  having  been  them- 
selves convinced,  it  is  not  likely  that  they  would  have  entered  into  a  con- 
spiracy of  silence  to  keep  other  men  from  the  truth.  The  tragic  irony  in 
the  incident  consists  of  the  stolid  unwillingness  of  the  Jewish  objectors  to 
be  convinced — a  characteristic  exhibited  in  more  ways  than  one  during  this 
portion  of  John's  narrative.  This  being  so  the  reader  can  judge  for  himself 
of  the  force  of  Schmiedel's  statement :  "  This  at  all  events  cannot  be  dis- 
puted, that  John  represents  the  disciples  as  believing  in  a  Jesus  of  Nazareth, 
whilst  the  unbelieving  Pharisees  demand  a  Jesus  of  Bethlehem."  A  state- 
ment wider  of  the  mark,  it  would  be  difficult  to  imagine. 


EXEGETICAL    CONSTRUCTION  OF  THE  SECTIONS    213 

Godet  argues  1  from  the  absence  of  the  article  from  the 
name  Joseph  in  Luke's  genealogy:  1.  That  this  name 
belongs  rather  to  the  sentence  introduced  by  Luke.  2. 
That  the  genealogical  document  which  he  consulted  began 
with  the  name  of  Heli.  3.  And  consequently  that  this 
piece  was  not  originally  the  genealogy  of  Jesus  or  Joseph, 
but  of  Heli.  This  brings  the  name  Joseph  in  the  list  into 
a  merely  explanatory  relation  to  the  name  Jesus  and  con- 
nects Jesus  directly  with  his  grandfather  Heli,  the  mother's 
name  being  supplied  by  the  name  Joseph.  The  sentence 
would  then  read :  Jesus,  as  was  supposed  the  son  of 
Joseph,  being  the  son  of  Heli.  This  avoids  the  difficulty 
connected  with  the  absence  of  the  article  from  the  name 
of  Joseph,  which  definitely  sets  him  outside  the  succession.2 

This  ingenious  theory,  which  has  many  great  names  to 
support  it,  is  irrevocably  shattered  upon  one  simple  con- 
sideration, that  it  compels  us  to  attribute  more  than  one 
meaning  to  the  word  uiot;  in  a  single  sentence.  The 
other  objections  to  the  theory  that  Luke  is  giving  Mary's 
genealogy  may  be  successfully  met ;  this  one  seems  to  me 
fatal.  What  is  the  result  then  ?  By  the  breaking  down 
of  this  theory,  are  we  forced  back  upon  the  other  one — 
that  Luke  is  attempting  to  repeat  the  list  which  Matthew 
gives,  and  succeeds  so  badly  that  he  gets  but  two  names 
the  same?  If  we  are  forced  to  this  alternative,  then  of 
course  the  value  of  the  genealogies  is  lost.  But  we  are 
not  forced  to  any  such  dismal  choice.  Let  me  throw  into 
the  form  of  separate  propositions,  the  considerations  which 
must  enter  into  the  explanation  :  1.  The  almost  complete 
divergence  of  the  lists.  2.  The  certainty  that  Matthew's 
list  was  constructed  to  establish  Jesus'  theocratic  birth- 

1  Commentary  on  Luke,  Am.  Ed.,  p.  128.     See  Thinker,  Jan.  1895. 
a  See  good  summary  of  this  position,  L.  J.  Lange,  vol.  i,  p.  302,  quota- 
tion from  Hoffman. 


214  GOSPEL  NARRATIVES 

right  as  the  Jewish  Messiah.  3.  The  presumptive  likeli- 
hood that  Luke  would  not  share  Matthew's  interest  in 
the  theocratic  birthright.  4.  The  certainty  that  the  estab- 
lishment of  the  birthright  was  not  the  purpose  of  Luke's 
genealogy,  as  is  sufficiently  shown  by  his  use  of  the 
genealogy  back  of  Abraham,  and  by  his  tracing  of  the 
Davidic  line  to  Nathan,  who  was  not  the  heir  of  the 
promise.  5.  The  omission  of  the  article  in  connection 
with  the  name  of  Joseph,  which  calls  attention  to  a  break 
in  the  genealogy,  and  brings  Heli  into  immediate  connec- 
tion with  Jesus.  6.  The  certainty  that  lists  which  exhibit 
the  transmission  of  the  theocratic  birthright,  would  be 
guarded  with  such  care  that  a  divergence  like  that  be- 
tween Matthew's  list  and  Luke's  list  would  be  impossible. 

7.  The  certainty  that  in  the  family  of  David  there  would 
be  not  only  a  list,  exhibiting  the  transmission  of  the  ideal 
birthright  from  one  generation  to  another,  but  also  a 
civic  list  containing  the  names  of  the  successive  heirs  of 
land  or  other  family  properties — in  other  words  a  tax  list. 

8.  The  distinct  possibility,  if  not  probability,  that  Joseph 
and  Mary  were  akin.  This  would  account  for  the  fact 
otherwise  difficult  of  explanation,  that  Joseph  was  accom- 
panied by  Mary  on  his  visit  to  Bethlehem  at  the  time 
of  the  enrollment.  9.  If  Joseph  and  Mary  were  both  heirs 
of  family  property,  even  merely  presumptive  or  possible 
heirs,  their  names  would  appear  in  conjunction  upon  the 
civic  register,  and  the  civil  genealogy  of  one  would  be 
that  of  the  other.  10.  The  appearance  of  Mary's  rela- 
tionship to  the  general  line  would  constitute  the  value 
and  interest  of  the  list,  so  far  as  Luke  is  concerned. 

It  seems  to  me  that  in  the  considerations  outlined  above, 
we  have  the  materials  for  a  conclusion  concerning  the 
genealogies,  at  once  rational  and  satisfactory.1     The  ex- 

1  On  the  question  of  the  genealogies,  see  Lessons  on  Life  of  Jesus  in 
Hand-books  for  Bible  Classes — Lesson  i,  note  by  Scrymgeour. 


EXEGETICAL    CONSTRUCTION  OF  THE   SECTIONS   21 5 

treme  likelihood  that  the  lists  meant  something  to  those 
who  prepared  them  and  accepted  them  as  a  part  of  the 
Gospels,  should  lead  one  to  give  fair  consideration  to  any- 
reasonable  hypothesis  which  explains  the  facts  and  also 
tends  to  establish  their  correctness  and  authority.  Luke 
does  not  attempt  to  repeat  Matthew's  list.  There  was  no 
reason  why  he  should.  The  human  rather  than  the  theo- 
cratic relationship  of  Jesus  interested  him.  And  had  he 
been  ever  so  deeply  interested  in  the  theocratic  inheri- 
tance, Matthew  had  established  it  sufficiently  well,  except 
in  this  one  particular;  if  Luke  could  also  have  shown 
that  Jesus  was  the  heir  of  the  Promise  through  Mary  His 
mother,  as  well  as  through  Joseph  His  reputed  father, 
perhaps  he  would  have  done  so.  But  this  he  could  not 
do.  In  his  researches,  he  was  shown  Joseph's  civic  list, 
upon  which  Maty  appears  as  a  kinswoman  and  heir. 
This  interested  Luke  as  did  everything  concerning  Mary, 
and  he  adopted  the  list,  merely  conforming  to  etiquette 
by  refraining  from  the  direct  mention  of  Mary's  name. 
In  place  of  doing  that,  he  omitted  the  article  from 
Joseph's  name  thus  throwing  the  attention  over  to  Heli, 
Mary's  father  and  Joseph's  uncle,  joint  heir  with  Joseph's 
father  in  the  properties,  if  such  were  still  in  existence. 
This  accounts  for  all  the  facts,  the  divergence  in  the 
lists,  Luke's  interest  in  the  one  he  chose,  the  omission  of 
the  article,  and  Mary's  trip  to  Bethlehem.  It  also  opens 
the  way  to  an  explanation  of  another  puzzling  fact.  The 
appearance  of  the  two  names  which  are  identical  in  both 
lists.  It  can  be  explained  on  the  ground  that  at  the  time 
of  the  return  the  real  heirs  of  the  land  were  absent,  and 
two  kinsmen,  who  were  prominent  in  the  return,  acted  for 
the  absent  heirs,  and  thus  appeared  in   the  lists.1     The 

1  I  am  indebted  to  some  writer  for  this  suggestion,  but  the  reference 
has  escaped  me. 


2l6  GOSPEL   NARRATIVES 

use  of  the  words  "son  of"  in  Luke's  list  is  to  be  ex- 
plained by  Luke's  understanding  that  a  succession  of  that 
kind  would  pass  from  father  to  son,  which  might  or  might 
not  be  correct  in  every  instance.  This  general  conclusion 
to  which  all  considerations  which  bear  upon  the  question 
point  is  none  the  less  satisfactory  that  it  shows  Mary  to 
have  been  of  the  house  of  David  though  out  of  the  strictly 
theocratic  line.1 

One  other  argument  on  the  subject,  which  is  really  an 
attempt  to  carry  the  question  by  a  coup,  must  be  consid- 
ered. In  connection  with  the  apparent  discrepancy  between 
the  use  of  Joseph's  genealogy  and  the  doctrine  of  the 
virgin  birth,  it  is  said  that  "  recent  research  has  suggested, 
that,  to  the  contemporary  Jewish  mind,  there  was  no 
incompatibility.  Joseph  might  be,  not  merely  the  putative 
or  adoptive  father  of  Jesus,  but  the  real  father — at  the 
same  time  that  the  birth  was  due  solely  to  "  the  power  of 
the  Most  High"  (Lk.  i,  35).  Isaac,  in  like  manner,  was 
spoken  of  as  "God-begotten"  (cf.  Rom.  iv,  17-20;  Heb. 
xi,  12),  without  any  idea  of  denying  the  reality  of  his  rela- 
tion to  Abraham.  The  o>c  ivofxcfsTO  is,  therefore,  to  be 
attributed  to  the  evangelist  as  against  the  source."2 

This  explanation  is  dealt  with  more  in  detail  in  the  last 
chapter  of  the  book.  At  this  point,  it  is  only  necessary 
to  say  that  it  denies  distinctiveness  to  the  idea  which  is  the 
formative  principle  of  the  entire  Infancy  section,  and  is 
flatly  contradicted  by  the  evident  fact  that  Luke,  and 
presumably  Matthew,  maintained  a  clear  distinction  be- 
tween the  origin  of  the  men  of  promise,  like  Isaac  and 
John  the  Baptist,  and  the  miraculous  origin  of  Jesus. 

I  have  accepted  this  interpretation  of  Luke's  genealogy, 

1  Justin  Martyr  believed  that  Mary  was  of  Davidic  origin;  see  Dial., 
cap.  c. 

2  Bacon  in  Hastings  B.  D.,,  vol.  i,  p.  140  a. 


EXEGETICAL    CONSTRUCTION  OF   THE  SECTIONS   217 

not  merely  because  it  tends  to  establish  its  historicity,  for 
which  one  need  not  be  particularly  solicitous,  but  because 
it  is  more  in  accord  with  the  general  character  of  Luke's 
Gospel,  and  satisfies  more  of  the  facts  than  any  other 
explanation. 

My  third  proposition  is  that,  in  the  minds  of  the  Jewish 
disciples  of  Jesus  at  least,  the  most  important  item  in  the 
whole  matter  of  His  human  relationship  would  be  His 
kinship  with  the  family  of  David  in  the  royal  line.  In 
competition  with  this,  the  virgin  birth  would  have  no  rela- 
tive standing.  If  the  two  doctrines  were  incompatible,  and 
one  had  to  be  sacrificed,  it  would  necessarily  be  the  virgin 
birth.  There  could  have  been  no  conceivable  motive  in 
their  minds  for  retaining  the  virgin  birth  at  the  cost  of 
the  Davidic  origin. 

The  earliest  Ebionite  objection  to  the  virgin  birth  seems 
to  have  taken  the  form  of  an  argument  that  the  Messiah 
must  be  of  Davidic  origin  on  both  sides.  In  this  argument, 
there  is  at  least  an  implied  contention  that  the  putative 
fatherhood  of  Joseph  was  not  enough  to  satisfy  the  case. 
The  whole  Ebionite  contention,  however,  shows  clearly 
that  the  virgin  birth  would  have  been  unhesitatingly 
rejected  by  all  of  Jewish  antecedents  who  were  jealous  for 
the  Davidic  ancestry  of  Jesus,  unless  there  were  some  way 
to  reconcile  the  birth  statement  with  this  favorite  tenet. 
The  conjunction  of  the  two  statements  in  our  documents, 
proves  either  that  Joseph's  adoptive  fatherhood,  as  inter- 
preted by  Matthew,  was  satisfactory  to  all  but  the  most 
extreme  Jews, x  who  did  not  expect  and  would  hot  receive 
a  divine  Messiah,  in  which  case,  the  interpretation  of 
Luke's  genealogy  is  a  matter  of  indifference ;  or  else,  the 
disciples  were  convinced  that  Mary  was  of  Davidic  origin. 
At  any  rate,  there  must  have  been  some  way  to  reconcile, 

JSee  Bacon  :  Hastings  B.  D.,  p.  141 


2l8  GOSPEL   NARRATIVES 

in  the  minds  of  such  strongly  Jewish  writers  as  the  author 
of  Matthew's  Gospel,  the  two  statements.  This  consider- 
ation lends  force  to  our  arguments  to  prove  that,  while 
Luke's  genealogy  is  Joseph's,  its  real  interest  for  him  lay 
in  its  connection  with  Mary. 

So  far  as  we  are  concerned — for  the  faith  of  the  modern 
Christian — Christ's  spiritual  sonship  to  David,  and  heirship 
to  the  promise  of  God  is  enough  to  meet  the  demands  of 
a  historic  and  rational  faith,  so  that  we  could  give  up  the 
genealogies  without  serious  loss ;  but  a  profound  convic- 
tion that  the  genealogies,  in  connection  with  the  narrative, 
must  have  meant  something  definite  and  rational  to  those, 
by  whom  they  were  published,  and  to  those  who  received 
them  as  scripture,  has  led  me  to  seek  some  explanation  of 
them  which  shall  preserve  their  historic  value. 

We  come  next  to  the  question  of  the  differing  historical 
statements  of  the  two  accounts.1  In  considering  this 
question,  due  consideration  should  be  given  to  the  facts 
adduced  by  Godet  in  support  of  his  contention  that 
Matthew's  account  is  a  rt  didactic  exposition,"  in  which 
particular  incidents  are  brought  into  connection  with 
prophecy  as  a  proof  of  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus.  This 
interpretation  lends  weight  to  our  contention,  that  the 
incidents  themselves  are  historical,  because  it  would  be 
altogether  improbable  that  incidents  should  be  invented 
for  such  a  purpose ;  at  the  same  time,  if  this  is  the  proper 
understanding  of  Matthew's  account  of  the  Infancy,  it  is 
obviously  unfair  to  attempt  to  fit  together  in  an  ordered 
sequence  an  argument  like  Matthew's,  and  a  narrative  like 
Luke's.  Godet  thus  supports  his  contention :  "  So  little 
does  the  author  entertain  the  idea  of  relating,  that  in 
chapter  i,  while  treating  of  the  birth  of  Jesus,  he  does  not 

1  On  the  general  subject  of  the  two  stories  see  Fisher :  Beginnings  of 
Christianity,  pp.  420,  ff. 


EXEGETICAL    CONSTRUCTION  OF  THE   SECTIONS   219 

even  mention  Bethlehem ;  he  is  wholly  taken  up  with  the 
connection  of  the  fact  of  which  he  is  speaking  with  the 
oracle,  Isa.  vii,  14.  It  is  only  after  having  finished  this 
subject,  when  he  comes  to  speak  of  the  visit  of  the  Magi, 
that  he  mentions,  for  the  first  time,  and  as  it  were  in  pass- 
ing (Jesus  being  born  in  Bethlehem),  this  locality.  And 
with  what  object  ?  With  a  historical  view  ?  Not  at  all ; 
simply  on  account  of  the  prophecy  of  Micah,  which  is  to 
be  illustrated  in  the  visit  of  the  Magi,  and  in  which  the 
place  of  the  Messiah's  birth  was  announced  beforehand. 
Apart  from  this  prophecy,  he  would  still  less  have  thought 
of  mentioning  Bethlehem  in  the  second  narrative  than  in 
the  first.  And  it  is  this  desultory  history,  made  up  of 
isolated  facts,  referred  to  solely  with  an  apologetic  aim, 
that  is  to  be  employed  to  criticise  and  correct  a  complete 
narrative,  such  as  Luke's.  Is  it  not  clear  that,  between 
two  accounts  of  such  a  different  nature,  there  may  easily 
be  found  blanks  which  hypothesis  alone  can  fill  up  ?  "  1 

In  addition  to  this,  it  is  to  be  noted  that  neither  account 
is  exhausive.  Godet  speaks  of  Luke's  account  as  com- 
plete; it  would  be  more  strictly  accurate  to  speak  of  it  as 
relatively  complete.  In  accordance  with  Luke's  fixed 
purpose,  it  goes  farther  back  to  trace  events  from  their 
beginning,  and  to  place  them  accurately  in  their  sequence,2 
but  he  nowhere  pretends  to  be  exhaustive.  In  fact,  it  is 
perfectly  evident  that  events,  which  were  mere  episodes, 
without  definite  bearing  upon  the  general  movement  of  the 
history,  would  not  harmonize  with  his  purpose,  and  would 
be  very  probably  omitted  from  his  narrative. 

In  the  very  nature  of  the  case,  neither  account,  taken 

singly  or  both  together,  can  be  considered  complete.    The 

double  narrative  covers  a  period  of  nearly  thirty  years. 

It  contains  a  statement  of  the  ancestry,  brief  notices  of  the 

1  Godet,  Com.  on  Luke,  pp.  95,  96.  3  Luke  i,  3. 


220  GOSPEL  NARRATIVES 

time,  place,  and  circumstances  of  Christ's  birth,  certain 
events  which  followed  it,  with  a  summary  of  the  period 
between  the  Infancy  and  the  Baptism  which  contains  but 
one  definite  occurrence.  It  is  simply  inconceivable  that  a 
story  which  is  so  fragmentary  and  so  deficient  in  detail, 
could  be  offered  as  a  complete  history  of  the  Infancy. 

Matthew  offers  a  number  of  incidents,  which  are  simply 
typical  and  of  interest  as  related  to  the  Messianic  hopes. 
Luke  gives  the  sequence  of  the  chief  events  from  Mary's 
point  of  view.  Neither  account  is  exhaustive,  both  together 
leave  out  many  events  that  might  naturally  have  found  a 
place  in  the  record,  had  the  intention  been  cherished  of 
making  it  complete. 

It  is  to  be  noted,  also,  that  neither  account  contains  any 
definite  chronological  indications.  Matthew  says  that  the 
wise  men  came  "in  the  days  of  Herod  the  king,"  and 
Luke  connects  the  birth  with  the  enrollment  of  Augustus; 
but  neither  one  says  anything  concerning  the  intervals 
intervening  between  the  birth  of  Christ,  the  coming  of  the 
wise  men,  the  flight  into  Egypt,  and  the  return  to  Nazareth. 
Matthew  simply  connects  the  return  from  Egypt  with  the 
death  of  the  old  king,  which,  of  course,  does  not  definitely 
fix  the  length  of  the  interval. 

There  is,  therefore,  nothing  in  the  chronological  notices 
of  either  account  to  shut  out  events  recorded  by  one  and 
omitted  by  the  other. 

Looking  now  at  the  accounts,  as  they  stand,  it  is  per- 
fectly evident  that  Luke  gives  what  he  conceives  to  be  the 
main  sequence  of  events.  The  events  recorded  by  Mat- 
thew, which  he  omits,  do  not  belong  to  the  main  move- 
ments of  the  history,  but  are  in  the  nature  of  episodes. 

Luke  begins  with  the  events,  antecedent  to  the  births  of 
John  the  Baptist  and  Jesus,  and  from  that  point  on  gives 
the  natural  order  of  occurrences.     The  parents  of  Jesus 


EXEGETICAL    CONSTRUCTION  OF  THE  SECTIONS    221 

lived  at  Nazareth ;  they  went  to  Bethlehem  on  business 
connected  with  a  provincial  enrollment;  during  their  stay- 
there  Jesus  was  born ;  after  eight  days  the  child  was 
circumcised  according  to  the  law;  in  due  time,  Mary  pre- 
sented Him  in  the  temple  and  made  her  offering  for  His 
redemption ;  after  their  duties  were  accomplished,  the 
family  went  back  again  to  Nazareth  to  live. 

Matthew  gives  the  episode  which  connects  the  geneal- 
ogy with  the  history — the  acceptance  by  Joseph  of  the  fact 
that  Jesus  should  be  supernaturally  born.  From  that 
point  on,  he  concerns  himself  entirely  with  a  group  of 
incidents  centering  around  Herod.  It  is  an  episode  which 
derives  its  interest  entirely  from  the  fact  that  it  does  con- 
nect the  life  of  the  new-born  King  with  the  dying  Idumean, 
whose  career  formed  so  strange  a  part  of  the  unfolding 
epic  of  Israel.  Writing  to  Hebrews,  there  was  no  need  to 
tell  them  of  the  familiar  incidents  at  the  temple ;  those 
might  easily  be  taken  for  granted  by  readers  familiar  with 
Jewish  practices. 

But  the  episode  connected  with  Herod  had  a  vital  inter- 
est to  Matthew,  and  to  every  other  thoughtful  Hebrew, 
insomuch  as  there  was  a  small  but  influential  party  among 
the  Jews,  who  "  desired  the  establishment  of  the  national 
kingdom  under  one  or  another  of  the  sons  of  Herod."  l 

The  recognition  of  the  fact  that  it  is  an  episode,  aside 
from  the  main  course  of  events,  effectually  disposes  of  the 
assertion  that  it  cannot  be  fitted  into  the  framework  of 
Luke's  account.  Luke  simply  passes  from  mention  of  the 
regular  temple  duties  to  the  next  event  in  which  he  was 
interested:  namely,  the  return  to  Nazareth,  where  the 
childhood  of  Jesus  was  spent  and  whence  He  appeared  as 
the  great  Teacher.  What  Luke  says  would  be  perfectly 
correct  in  a  brief  and  summary  account,  such  as  his  neces- 
1  See  Hastings  B.  D.,  Article  Herodians. 


222  GOSPEL   NARRATIVES 

sarily  was,  even  though  the  episode  of  which  Matthew 
speaks,  occupied  two  years  or  more.  The  natural  sequence 
of  events  was  from  the  temple  to  Nazareth,  and  Luke  may 
or  may  not  have  had  any  knowledge  of  the  fact  that  the 
natural  sequence  was  broken  by  the  occurrences  of  which 
Matthew  speaks. x 

Any  interpretation  of  ii,  39,  which  forbids  the  insertion 
of  the  events  connected  with  Herod,  would  force  us  to 
believe  that  the  parents  of  Jesus  left  the  temple  and  imme- 
diately, within  a  few  moments  or  hours,  departed  for 
Nazareth.  Since  the  next  few  verses  summarize  the  entire 
period  previous  to  the  Baptism,  it  is  not  unreasonable  to 
suppose  that,  in  this  verse,  Luke  simply  intended  to  carry 
the  narrative  from  one  point  in  which  he  was  interested  to 
the  next,  without  implying  anything  pro  or  con  concerning 
the  interval  between  the  two. 2 

Notice  also  the  close  connection  between  verses  39  and 
40.  The  verse  which  speaks  of  the  return  to  Nazareth, 
and  the  verse  which  summarizes  the  greater  part  of  the 
childhood  are  connected  by  8e ;  this  shows  how  rapid  are 
the  transitions  in  this  story. 

In  connection  with  the  relationship  of  the  two  accounts, 
Gloag  holds 3  that  Joseph  and  Mary  remained  at  Bethlehem 
for  a  year.  They  had  left  the  Khan  (Matt,  ii,  12),  and  the 
children,  who  were  murdered,  were  from  two  years  old 
and  under  (Matt,  ii,  16) — two  indications  that  some  such 
period  had  elapsed.  The  first  harmonist  of  the  Gospels, 
Tatian,  in  his  Diatessaron,  has  combined  the  two  accounts 
in  a  very  simple  and  effective  way : — 

1  The  interdependence  of  the  two  accounts  in  at  least  one  detail  is  evident. 
The  incident  connected  with  Joseph's  first  dream  explains  the  otherwise 
baffling  incident  of  Mary's  visit  to  Elisabeth  told  by  Luke  ;  see  Cam.  Bible 
for  Schools,  Luke,  p.  54. 

2 This  meets  and  answers  the  argument  of  Jolley,  Syn.  Prob.  (MacMil- 
lan,  1893),  pp.  24,  seq. 

3  In.  to  Syn.  Gospels,  p.  136, 


EXEGETICAL    CONSTRUCTION  OF  THE  SECTIONS   223 

1.  The  birth  at  Bethlehem. 

2.  Removal  from  the  stable  to  a  house. 

3.  Forty  days  later,  presentation  in  the  Temple  and 
recognition  by  Simeon  and  Anna. 

4.  From  Jerusalem  back  to  Bethlehem,  perhaps  with 
the  idea  of  taking  up  permanent  residence  there. 

5.  About  a  year  later  the  visit  of  the  Magi  and  appear- 
ance of  the  star. 

6.  The  warning  of  danger  and  flight  into  Egypt. 

7.  During  absence,  massacre  of  children. 

8.  Return  to  Judaea,  possibly  with  the  idea  of  living  in 
Bethlehem,  but  warned  again,  turning  aside  to  Nazareth. 

Upon  this,  Gloag  says  :  "  By  such  a  method,  any  apparent 
discrepancy  is  obviated,  at  least  it  is  shown  that  there  does 
not  exist  any  antagonism  between  the  two  narratives.  We 
have  only  to  suppose  that  Luke  omits  in  his  narrative  the 
events  which  occurred  during  the  temporary  residence  in 
Bethlehem.  The  return  to  Nazareth  which  he  mentions 
(Luke  ii,  39)  is  the  same  which  Matthew  mentions  as 
taking  place  on  their  coming  back  from  Egypt  (Matt. 

a,  23)." 

In  accounts  so  fragmentary,  a  full  exposition  of  sequence 
is,  of  course,  impossible,  but,  the  question  may  fairly  be 
asked  :  Is  there  anything  in  the  account  which  forbids  our 
acceptance  of  Tatian's  harmony  as  substantially  correct  ? 
The  most  serious  obstacle  is  the  apparent  contradiction 
on  the  subject  of  the  previous  residence  of  Joseph  and 
Mary  at  Nazareth. 

Luke  clearly  states  that  the  family  residence  was  at 
Nazareth,  to  which  they  naturally  returned  after  the  events 
connected  with  the  birth  of  Jesus  were  concluded.  Mat- 
thew says  nothing  of  any  previous  residence,  and  plainly 
states  that  they  went  to  Nazareth  through  fear  of  Arche- 
laus,  who  was  reigning  in  Herod's  place.      It  may  be  that 


224  GOSPEL  NARRATIVES 

Matthew  knew  nothing  of  the  previous  residence  at  Naz- 
areth, though  this  is  by  no  means  certain. 

It  must  be  remembered,  however,  that  to  a  strict  Jew  it 
would  be  exceedingly  offensive  that  the  Messiah  should 
be  connected  with  Nazareth.  To  many  minds,  as  to 
Nathanael's,  it  would  be  very  difficult  to  believe  that 
Christ  should  issue  from  an  obscure  and  despised  hamlet 
of  Galilee.  It  is  significant  that  Matthew  says  nothing 
about  the  connection  of  the  family  with  Nazareth  until  he 
can  properly  adduce  the  divine  authority  for  it.  As  Lange 
very  clearly  states  it :  "  The  often  recurring  assertion  of 
modern  criticism,  that  Matthew  assumes  that  the  parents 
of  Jesus  always  lived  in  Bethlehem,  before  their  settlement 
in  Nazareth  here  mentioned,  is  supported,  first,  by  the  fact 
( chap,  ii,  I )  that  the  birth  of  Jesus  at  Bethlehem  is 
spoken  of  without  any  previous  mention  of  the  journey 
of  the  parents.  But  since  he  had  already  spoken  of  Mary 
and  Joseph  in  the  first  chapter,  it  might  have  been 
expected  that  the  supposed  assumption,  with  respect  to 
their  dwelling,  would  have  come  to  light  there,  if  it  had 
really  existed ;  while  the  fact  of  his  not  mentioning  Beth- 
lehem till  he  relates  the  birth  of  Jesus,  seems  rather  to 
testify  that  he  had  in  view  another  place  than  the  ordinary 
abode  of  the  parents.  His  reason  for  not  naming  the 
latter  may  be  explained  by  the  intention  of  his  Gospel. 
He  would  not  unnecessarily  state  anything  which  might 
add  to  the  difficulties  of  Jewish  Christians.  Hence  he 
does  not  name  Nazareth  till  the  passage,  in  which  he  is 
obliged  to  do  so,  and  when  he  can  appeal  to  a  decided 
motive,  and  a  divine  direction.  That  Mary  and  Joseph 
had  formerly  dwelt  at  Nazareth,  is,  in  this  passage  (chap. 
ii,  23)  a  merely  accessory  circumstance." * 

The  difference  in  the  reasons  assigned  for  the  return  to 
1  Lange  L.  J.,  vol.  i,   317,  1 8. 


EXEGETICAL    CONSTRUCTION  OF  THE   SECTIONS   225 

Nazareth  is  so  slight  as  to  call  for  no  labored  explanation. 
It  may  be  explained,  however,  by  the  very  simple  and 
natural  hypothesis,  that  after  the  birth  of  Christ  the  family 
planned  to  live  in  Bethlehem,  a  place  made  doubly  sacred 
to  them  by  ancient  and  recent  history.  They  undoubtedly 
had  motive  enough  for  not  wishing  to  return  to  Nazareth. 

We  have  considered  with  some  fullness  the  differences 
between  the  two  accounts.  Unless  one  looks  at  them  with 
a  distinctively  unfavorable  bias,  they  are  neither  many  nor 
serious.  Aside  from  the  genealogies,  there  are  only  such 
differences  as  would  naturally  occur  in  two  documents 
looking  at  events  from  varying  points  of  view,  which  may 
be  readily  and  fairly  adjusted.  In  any  other  historical  docu- 
ments, they  would  scarcely  be  looked  upon  as  difficulties.1 

In  view  of  the  striking  and  notable  coincidences  between 
the  two  documents,  their  divergences  sink  into  comparative 
insignificance.  Godet  says  :  "  Two  incidents  are  common 
to  Luke  and  Matthew  :  The  birth  at  Bethlehem  and  His 
education  at  Nazareth."2 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  accounts  as  they  stand  converge 
upon  six  points  instead  of  two :  The  birth  from  a  virgin  ; 
the  name  Jesus  ;  the  birth  at  Bethlehem  ;  the  Davidic 
descent ;  the  dating  under  Herod ;  and  the  residence  at 
Nazareth.  If  it  be  objected  that  the  genealogies  differ  in 
the  method  as  much  as  they  agree  in  the  result,  it  still 
remains  true  that  both  for  Matthew  and  Luke,  Jesus  is 
the  son  of  David.  In  documents  so  brief,  this  is  most 
remarkable  unanimity.  The  narratives  have  evidently 
grown  up  in  different  environments,  and  consider  the  facts 
from  different  points  of  view,  yet  they  agree  in  the  emphatic 
statement  of  the  same  central  and  all-important  facts. 

1  On   contradictions    in  historical  accounts,  see  Fisher,  Beginnings  of 
Christianity,  pp.  398,  also  Whately's  Napoleon. 
3  Com.  on  Luke,  p.  96. 
15 


226  GOSPEL   NARRATIVES 

Lobstein's  objection  to  the  conclusions  naturally  drawn 
from  this  unanimity  lacks  force  because  it  is  based  upon 
an  underestimate  of  the  positive  evidence  of  truthfulness  in 
the  accounts  taken  separately.1 

It  is  practically  impossible  to  break  the  force  of  this 
convergence  upon  the  main  points  at  issue.  And  the  very 
differences  add  tremendously  to  the  value  of  their  testi- 
mony. The  only  plausible  attempt  which  has  been  made 
to  account  for  the  story  on  mythical  grounds  is  by  alleg- 
ing the  influence  of  the  prophecies  as  shown  in  Matthew's 
account.  This  explanation,  as  we  have  already  seen, 
breaks  down  even  in  the  case  of  Matthew,  while  it  has  no 
meaning  in  connection  with  Luke.  The  incidents  must 
have  had  some  other  backing  than  quoted  prophecies,  or 
Luke  would  have  had  nothing  to  do  with  them.  The 
supposition  that  prophecy  first  created  the  incidents,  and 
that  afterwards  they  became  possessed  of  independent 
existence,  and  continued  in  circulation  apart  from  the 
prophecies  which  gave  them  birth,  and  in  connection  with 
which  all  their  real  value  consisted,  is  incredible. 

Two  accounts  given  for  widely  different  purposes,  and 
addressed  to  different  readers,  and  yet  testifying  in  common 
to  the  main  facts  involved,  cannot  be  called  weak  nor  un- 
certain testimony.  It  would  carry  conviction  to  any  fair- 
minded  jury.  The  only  real  ground  of  resistance  to  it  lies 
in  such  a  strong  bias  against  the  possibility  of  the  super- 
natural as  to  render  the  mind  proof  against  any  amount 
or  any  kind  of  testimony. 

We  have  now  to  consider  the  relationship  of  the  in- 
cidents recorded  in  the  Gospel  of  the  Infancy  to  the  rest 

1  Lobstein  argues  that  the  convergence  of  two  documents  separately 
untrustworthy  upon  the  same  statement  does  not  tend  to  establish  their 
truthfulness.  True,  but  if  the  divergences  of  the  documents  in  matters  of 
fact  have  been  used  to  discredit  them,  then  their  coincidences  ought 
certainly  to  be  allowed  due  weight  in  their  favor. 


EXEGETICAL    CONSTRUCTION  OF  THE  SECTIONS    22/ 

of  the  New  Testament.  Here  is  to  be  found  the  real 
stronghold  of  the  opposition.  It  is  broadly  affirmed  that 
the  incidents  of  the  preliminary  section  totally  lack  con- 
firmation from  the  rest  of  the  New  Testament.  Mark, 
John,  and  Paul  ignore  the  virgin  birth  in  constructing  the 
primitive  biography  of  Christ,  the  theoretic  Christology, 
and  the  Soteriology  of  the  mature  Gospel.  Every  one  will 
acknowledge,  of  course,  that  any  argument  from  silence 
in  writings,  which  do  not  profess  to  be  exhaustive,  is  to  be 
used  with  caution,  because  it  is  so  apt  to  prove  too  much. 
But  it  does  not  seem  strange  that  comprehensive  and  sys- 
tematic thinkers,  like  John  and  Paul,  could  construct  their 
doctrines  of  the  transcendence  and  authority  of  Christ 
without  distinct  reference  to  so  important  a  fact  as  His 
supernatural  birth. 

Let  us  address  ourselves  to  the  problem. 

So  far  as  Mark  is  concerned,  the  question  is  compara- 
tively simple.  Mark's  Gospel  does  undoubtedly  bring  us 
close  to  the  early  preaching  of  the  apostles.1  Why,  then, 
were  the  disciples  not  satisfied  with  Mark's  study  of  Christ's 
life  ?  The  answer  ought  not  to  be  difficult.  Mark's  re- 
port of  early  apostolic  preaching  did  not  constitute  an 
adequate  or  satisfying  life  of  Christ.  It  began  and  ended 
abruptly,  beginning  with  the  Baptism,  and  ending  with  the 
Resurrection.  Now  the  early  preaching  of  the  disciples 
was  chiefly  and  properly  concerned  with  the  great  fact  of 
the  Resurrection.  Their  message  at  the  beginning  was 
rigidly  limited.  They  were  chosen  to  be  witnesses  of  His 
resurrection.  But  they  found  it  impossible,  even  in  the 
first  delivery  of  their  message  of  the  Resurrection,  to  avoid 
telling  something  about  the  life  of  Him  who  rose  from  the 

1  Mark  is  the  reporter  of  Peter  who  came  into  the  group  after  the  Baptism. 
Mark's  Gospel  is  practically  confined  within  the  limits  of  Peter's  personal 
experience. 


228  GOSPEL  NARRATIVES 

dead,  much  less  could  they  avoid  this  in  the  discussions 
which  followed  their  preaching.  The  Resurrection  rested 
upon  the  meaning  of  the  death  which  preceded  it,  and  the 
meaning  of  the  death  depended  upon  the  significance  of  the 
life,  of  which  it  was  the  issue.  Mark's  Gospel  was  a  com- 
pilation made  from  sermons  of  Peter,  containing  much 
biographical  material,  but  it  was  not  biography.  It  was 
deficient  in  many  ways  from  the  biographical  point  of  view. 
There  was  a  necessary  and  legitimate  demand  for  a  more 
complete  life  of  Jesus,  which  should  give  something  about 
Kis  early  life,  and  something  about  the  incidents  following 
the  Resurrection.  The  Gospel  of  Matthew  and  Luke 
represent  a  natural  and  inevitable  demand  for  greater 
details  in  the  life  of  Jesus.  Mark's  silence  on  the  subject 
of  Christ's  birth  is  no  more  conclusive  than  his  silence  on 
many  other  points.  From  his  peculiar  point  of  view,  the 
incidents  antecedent  to  the  baptism  had  no  particular  in- 
terest. His  purpose  was  to  depict  the  Son  of  man  in  His 
career  of  power.  He  had  no  interest  in  describing  the 
years  of  His  obscurity  and  weakness.  That  Mark  began 
his  Gospel  at  the  Baptism,  is  certainly  no  evidence  that  the 
life  of  Jesus  began  then.  Jesus,  of  a  truth,  did  not  enter 
the  world  as  a  grown-up  man.  Mark's  silence  proves 
absolutely  nothing  about  the  youth  of  Jesus,  or  else  it 
proves  that  He  had  none.  If  the  belief  that  Jesus  was 
born  of  Joseph  and  Mary,  was  an  essential  element  in  the 
primitive  Gospel,  why  did  Mark  not  state  it  as  such  ? 

His  silence  militates  as  strongly  against  the  critical  view 
as  against  the  historical  view.  If  Jesus  was  naturally  born 
of  Joseph  and  Mary,  and  became  by  a  divine  election  and 
baptism  the  Son  of  God,  it  was  as  wonderful  and  as  de- 
serving of  record  as  the  miraculous  birth. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  Mark's  silence  has  no  bearing  upon 
this  question,  for  it  becomes  increasingly  clear  that  Mark 


EXEGETICAL    CONSTRUCTION  OF  THE  SECTIONS    229 

has  omitted  or  displaced  some  important  synoptic  material 
which  belongs  before  the  Baptism,  as  well  as  incidents 
recorded  in  the  second  and  third  chapters  of  John.1 

In  other  words,  Mark  confines  himself  to  the  public 
ministry  of  Jesus,  which  he  considers  was  formally  inau- 
gurated at  the  Baptism.3 

The  next  question  concerns  John's  relationship  to  the 
birth  of  Jesus.  I  have  already  adduced  reasons  for  believ- 
ing that  John  cannot  be  counted  against  the  orthodox 
position.  It  simply  remains  to  bring  forward  those  rea- 
sons a  little  more  in  detail. 

The  alternative  theory  of  the  origin  of  Jesus  is  boldly 
stated  in  the  words  of  Soltau  :  "  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  son  of 
Joseph  and  Mary,  became  the  God-given  Messiah,  not  only 
of  His  own  people,  but  also  of  the  whole  world.  This  is 
the  true  miracle."3 

This  is  exactly  the  view  of  Cerinthus.  The  great  here- 
tic could  not  have  stated  his  belief  any  more  forcibly  than 
in  these  words.  The  overwhelming  preponderance  of  evi- 
dence establishes  that  John  and  Cerinthus  were  contem- 
poraries and  opponents  at  Ephesus.4     It  seems  to  me  a 

1  See  able  discussion  of  this  subject  in  Briggs,  New  Light  on  Life  of 
Christ,  chap.  i. 

2  Keim  concedes  that  Mark's  interpretation  of  Christ  really  involves  the 
miraculous  conception.  "  It  is  true  that  the  last  words  of  the  short  intro- 
duction, •  The  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ  the  Son  of  God,''  though  strongly 
attested,  must  be  erased  on  the  strength  of  the  Sinaitic  manuscript  (as  Tis- 
chendorf  has  done  in  his  eighth  edition)  and  must  be  regarded  as  an  inter- 
polation from  John  ;  yet  the  watchword  of  the  book  is  the  Son  of  God — 
nay,  going  beyond  the  standpoint  of  Matthew  and  Luke,  the  only,  the  well- 
beloved  Son  of  God,  Who  stands  high  above  the  angels  and  next  to  God 
Himself.  Nor  is  the  conception  attached  to  the  phrase  merely  a  Messianic 
one,  but  that  of  the  most  marvelous  endowment  of  spirit  and  power,  a  con- 
ception which  seems  to  be  based  upon  a  supernatural  birth  of  the  Son  of 
Mary."      (Keim.  J.  von  N.,  vol.  i,  p.  124,  Eng.  Trans.) 

3  Soltau,  p.  65. 

4  If  this  fact  could  be  successfully  disproved  the  argument  would  still 


230  GOSPEL   NARRATIVES 

little  unreasonable  for  men,  who  find  themselves  in  such 
perfect  accord  with  Cerinthus,  to  claim  John  also  on  their 
side.  Nothing  can  be  clearer  than  that  such  a  claim  is 
untenable.  The  historic  influence  of  John  through  Igna- 
tius and  Polycarp  is  one  of  the  clearest  lines  of  evidence 
in  the  history  of  the  early  church,  and  from  the  beginning 
it  is  identified  with  the  orthodox  view  of  the  person  of 
Christ.  In  every  historic  instance  of  opposition  to  the 
doctrine  of  the  virgin  birth,  that  opposition  had  its  ground 
in  views  of  the  person  and  work  of  Christ,  which  John 
abhorred. 

Moreover,  the  statement  of  Soltau  is  a  flat  contradiction 
of  the  sentence  of  John,  which  forms  the  keynote  of  his 
Gospel,  "The  Word  became  flesh."1  According  to  this 
new-old  view,  John's  sentence  ought  to  read,  "  Flesh 
became  the  word  " — "  Jesus  of  Nazareth  became  the  God- 
given  Messiah."  It  is  a  total  reversal  of  the  entire  con- 
ception which  John's  Gospel  offers  of  the  life  of  Christ. 
He  teaches  an  incarnation  of  God,  not  a  deification  of  man. 
The  movement  was  first  downward  out  of  deity  into  man, 
thence  upward  out  of  man  into  deity. 

John  did  not  specifically  mention  the  miraculous  birth 
in  his  Gospel,  for  a  good  and  sufficient  reason.  The  mirac- 
ulous birth  was  simply  an  item  in  a  larger  controversy 
in  which  he  was  absorbed  body  and  mind.  No  one  denied 
the  miraculous  birth  except  as  an  item  in  a  larger  denial. 
The  controversy  in  which  John  was  absorbed  concerned 
the  reality  of  the  Incarnation.  There  was  no  controversy 
as  to  the  virgin  birth  considered  in  itself.     No  one,  who 

stand,  for  the  strength  of  the  tradition  is  evidence  enough  that  the  teaching 
of  John  was  at  variance  with  that  of  Cerinthus.  The  Ephesine  residences 
of  John  and  consequently  the  tradition  which  connects  him  with  Cerinthus 
is  conclusively  established  by  Stanton  in  Gospels  as  His.  Doc,  Pt.  I.,  Chap, 
v.;  see  especially  Con.,  pp.  231  ff. 

1  Cf.  Fairbairn,  Phil.  Christ.  Rel.,  p.  453. 


EXEGETICAL    CONSTRUCTION  OF  THE  SECTIONS    23 1 

accepted  the  Incarnation,  denied  or  thought  of  denying 
the  miraculous  birth.  All  who  accepted  the  Incarnation 
accepted,  as  a  matter  of  course,  the  miraculous  birth. 
When,  therefore,  John  wrote  the  sentence,  "  The  Word 
became  flesh,"  he  gave  in  his  allegiance  to  that  entire 
systematic  interpretation  of  Christ  with  which,  in  the  mind 
of  the  early  church,  the  miraculous  birth  was  inseparably 
bound  up. 

The  great  contention  of  John's  Gospel,  the  formative 
idea  of  his  entire  interpretation  of  the  life  of  Jesus,  the 
basal  principle  of  all  his  thinking  in  the  realm  of  theology, 
is  that  the  eternal  Christ  became  embodied  in  the  his- 
toric Jesus  ;  and  the  recognized  symbol  to  every  intelligent 
mind  of  that  belief  was  the  miraculous  birth.  The  whole 
question  is  carried  by  what  Lange  well  calls  the  complete- 
ness of  John's  "  Christological  definitions."  To  count  him 
on  the  opposite  side  of  this  controversy,  can  be  done  only 
at  the  expense  of  his  honesty  or  his  intelligence. 

It  is  also  perfectly  clear  that  the  birth  at  Bethlehem  is 
implied  in  the  text  (John  vii,  42 )  often  quoted  in  favor  of 
John's  non-belief  in  the  miraculous  birth.  (  See  Hastings 
B.  D.,  vol.  ii,  p.  138,  note;  also  see  Ramsay,  Was  Christ 
Born  at  Bethlehem  ?  Chap,  v.) 

It  now  remains  for  us  to  consider  Paul's  attitude  toward 
this  question.  And  I  begin  with  this  question :  How 
did  it  happen,  if  Paul  did  not  believe  in  the  miraculous 
birth,  and  made  statements  directly  opposed  to  it,  that  his 
friend  and  fellow-traveler  and  disciple,  Luke,  was  such  a 
strenuous  believer  in  it?  Were  the  two  friends  in  opposi- 
tion on  this  point  ?  If  Paul  had  firm  ground  for  his  belief 
that  Jesus  was  born  as  other  men,  why  did  he  not  per- 
suade Luke  to  abandon  the  doctrine  of  the  miraculous 
birth  ?  If  Luke  held  the  belief  in  opposition  to  Paul,  why 
is  there  no  hint  of  a  controversy  ?     The  closeness  of  the 


232  GOSPEL   NARRATIVES 

relationship  between  Paul  and  Luke,  and  the  absence  of 
any  hint  of  a  controversy  between  them  on  this  or  any 
other  important  question,  seriously  impairs  the  argument 
from  Paul's  apparent  neglect  of  the  doctrine.  We  must 
seek  for  the  reason  for  that  neglect  somewhere  else  than 
in  positive  unbelief.  Moreover,  Paul's  statement  that 
Jesus  was  of  the  seed  of  David  implies  nothing  more  than 
an  opinion,  universal  in  the  apostolic  age,  that  Jesus 
belonged  to  the  family  of  David. x  Since  the  word  aizkpfia 
is  used  in  a  purely  figurative  sense  of  descendants  or  off- 
spring in  general, 2  it  conveys  no  definite  affirmation  as  to 
the  mode  of  Jesus'  birth.  It  does  not  even  forbid  the 
supposition  that  Paul  simply  accepted  Joseph's  putative 
fatherhood  as  sufficient  establishment  of  Jesus'  Davidic 
origin.  Certainly,  a  belief  in  Mary's  descent  from  David 
would  justify  the  use  of  the  phrases  ix  a-spjuaroz  and 
xara  adpxa.  Prof.  Stevens 3  says,  "  It  is  improbable  that 
Paul  was  acquainted  with  the  traditions  respecting  the 
supernatural  conception  and  miraculous  birth  of  Jesus ; 
but  even  in  that  case,  there  is  nothing  in  his  language 
which  is  inconsistent  with  them.  " 

Stevens's  belief  that  Paul  probably  was  not  acquainted 
with  the  tradition  of  the  Lord's  birth  seems  to  me  unlikely, 
in  view  of  the  intimacy  between  Paul  and  Luke,  but  the 
conclusion  which  he  draws  from  the  language  is  unques- 
tionable. 

We  have,  then,  two  facts  already  upon  which  to  base 
conclusions.  Luke  believed  in  the  miraculous  birth  and 
there  is  no  hint  of  any  controversy  between  him  and  Paul 
on  this  subject.     There  is  nothing  in  Paul's  phraseology 

*As  Ramsay  says,  this  belief  in  the  Davidic  origin  of  Jesus  rests  upon 
the  same  authority  as  the  virgin  birth.  He  could  scarcely  have  believed 
in  one  without  accepting  the  other. 

2  See  Thayer  Gk  D.N.T.  on  cnepiia. 

'Stevens's  Pauline  Theology,  p.  212. 


EXEGETICAL    CONSTRUCTION  OF  THE   SECTIONS    233 

inconsistent  with  the  accepted  doctrine.  Does  he  say 
anything  favorable  to  the  doctrine  ?  Opponents  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  miraculous  birth  are  very  careful  to  point 
out  that  the  phrase,  "  Born  of  a  woman,"  interpreted  in  the 
light  of  the  context,  simply  means  to  unite  Christ  to  the 
race  and  therefore  cannot  imply  an  exceptional  birth.  But 
if  the  phrase  ix  aTtip/xaro^  is  to  be  pushed  to  its  ultimate 
physiological  implications  of  "  natural  generation,"  what 
is  to  forbid  our  forcing  the  severe  interpretation  of  the 
passage,  "  Made  of  a  woman,"  to  its  final  conclusion  that  it 
excludes  the  parental  agency  of  the  father?  As  a  matter 
of  fact,  the  assertion  that  the  Messiah  was  so  completely 
a  sharer  in  the  life  of  the  race  as  really  to  be  "  made  of  a 
woman,"  carried  with  it,  to  Paul's  readers,  the  same  impli- 
cation as  John's  phrase,  "  Became  flesh,"  of  a  complete  doc- 
trine of  the  Incarnation  in  which  the  miraculous  birth  was 
an  essential  item. l  Paul  cannot  be  forced  into  the  camp 
of  his  extreme  Judaistic  opponents  in  the  matter  of  Christ's 
birth. 

That  he  made  no  further  use  of  the  fact  than  this  inci- 
dental allusion,  constitutes  a  problem  which  is  worthy  of 
a  little  closer  attention.  It  would  give  a  false  impression, 
however,  to  imply  that  the  miraculous  birth  is  the  only 
cardinal  fact  which  is  passed  over  or  lightly  touched  upon 
in  Paul's  treatment  of  Christian  doctrine.2     Paul's  whole 

1  Cf.  acute  observation  of  Briggs  (Messiah  of  the  Gospels,  p.  50,  n.  9. ) 
that  the  statements  of  Paul  imply  more  than  the  virgin  birth.  For  evi- 
dence that  account  is  early,  see  same  note. 

2  For  example  the  miracles.  "  The  New  Testament  outside  the  Gospels 
contains  two  references  and  only-two  references  to  our  Lord's  miracles.  In 
Acts  x,  38,  St.  Peter  is  represented  as  alluding  to  our  Lord's  having  gone 
about  'doing  good,  and  healing  all  that  were  oppressed  of  the  Devil,'  but 
these  works  are  not  in  dispute.  Again.  St.  Luke  makes  the  same  apostle 
on  the  day  of  Pentecost  appeal  to  '  mighty  works  and  wonders  and  signs 
which  God  did  by  Him  in  the  midst  of  you,'  as  pledges  of  the  divine  mis- 
sion of  Jesus  of  Nazareth  (Acts  ii,  22);  and  this  appeal  is  made  in  the  one 


234  GOSPEL   NARRATIVES 

attitude  toward  the  historic  facts  of  Christ's  earthly  life 
constitutes  a  very  important  critical  question.  A  work 
has  recently  appeared  in  Germany  on  the  Pauline  Chris- 
tology,1 which  maintains  this  thesis :  That  practically  the 
entire  metaphysical  ground  work  of  Paul's  Christology  had 
been  carried  over  from  his  Jewish  thought,  only  the  earthly 
life  of  Jesus  becomes  "an  episode  in  the  heavenly  existence 
of  the  Son  of  God,"  which  by  ascribing  to  Him  an  "  act 
of  voluntary  self-denial  gave  to  His  heavenly  life  an  ethi- 
cal content,  which  to  the  mind  of  Paul  it  had  not  previously 
possessed." 

This  thesis  is,  of  course,  greatly  in  excess  of  the  facts, 
but  it  is  interesting  in  its  bearing  upon  the  question  now 
before  us,  for  the  book  maintains  that  "  in  this  kind  of 
Christology,  which  Paul  had  in  common  with  the  Apoca- 
lyptic writers  of  the  age,  so  far  at  least  as  its  main  outlines 
were  concerned,  there  was  no  need  and  no  place  for  a 
human  birth  of  the  Messiah,  inasmuch  as  the  preexistence 
applied  to  the  body  as  well  as  to  the  pneuma.  The  pre- 
existent  One  was  to  be  revealed,  suddenly  to  appear. " 2 

place  in  which  it  could  naturally  and  rightly  have  been  made,  i.  e.,  in  the 
presence  of  those  who  are  alleged  to  have  themselves  witnessed  the  works — 
'even  as  ye  yourselves  know.'  Elsewhere  in  the  New  Testament,  though 
St.  Paul  is  deeply  conscious  that  the  Jews,  whom  a  crucified  Messiah 
'offended,'  'demand  signs'  (i  Cor.  i,  22 ),  and  though  he  (Gal.  iii,  5; 
I  Cor.  xii,  9  f.,  28  ff.  ;  II  Cor.  xii,  12  ;  Rom.  xv,  19)  and  the  writer  to  the 
Hebrews  (  ii,  4  )  allude  to  signs  and  wonders  wrought  in  apostolic  times, 
there  is  a  complete  and  unbroken  silence  as  to  the  miracles  of  our  Lord. 
A  similar  statement  may  be  made  as  to  the  Apostolic  Fathers."  From  this 
the  writer  draws  the  conclusion  that  the  miracle  mongering  spirit  was  not 
active  among  the  Christians  at  the  time  when  the  Gospels  were  in  process 
of  composition.  It  also  serves  to  put  in  a  very  different  light  Paul's  silence 
as  to  the  birth  of  Christ.     (Chase,  Cam.  Theol.  Essays,  pp.  403,  4.) 

1  Bruckner  of  Karlsruhe.  See  Art.  by  Prof.  Vos  in  Princeton  Seminary 
Review,  Jan.  1905,  pp.  144  seq.  See  comment  upon  this  work  in  Cam. 
Theol.  Essays  (1905),  p.  430. 

s  Vos,  Art.  quoted  above. 


EXEGETICAL    CONSTRUCTION  OF  THE  SECTIONS    235 

In  this  treatise,  conclusions  unfavorable,  not  only  to  the 
miraculous  birth  but  also  to  the  theological  importance 
of  the  natural  birth  of  Jesus,  have  been  drawn  from  Paul's 
silence.  And  it  is  difficult  to  see  why  this  conclusion  is 
not  as  cogent  as  the  other.  If  the  comparative  silence  of 
Paul  concerning  the  miraculous  birth  is  an  argument 
against  its  historical  reality,  is  not  his  silence  concern- 
ing the  natural  birth  equally  legitimate  evidence  against 
its  reality  ?  And  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  one  can  avoid 
the  further  rather  disastrous  conclusion  that  Paul  laid  very 
little  stress  upon  the  life  of  Christ  at  all. 1 

In  the  attempt  to  interpret  Paul's  treatment  of  the  facts 
of  Christ's  life,  the  peculiarity  of  his  Christian  experience 
must  not  be  overlooked. 2  He  had  a  vision  of  the  risen 
Christ,  which  revolutionized  his  convictions  and  changed 
his  life,  and  his  entire  thought  of  Christ  and  Christianity 
had  its  beginning  and  its  center  in  that  experience.  To 
him  all  the  facts  of  Christ's  earthly  life  were  subordinate 
to  the  supreme  fact  of  His  risen  life  in  glory.  This  is  the 
basis  of  all  such  theories  as  Bruckner's.     But  this  does 

1  The  relationship  of  Paul  to  the  facts  of  Christ's  life  has  been  one  of  the 
major  topics  in  recent  Pauline  literature.  The  general  trend  of  criticism 
has  been  to  establish  what  ought  to  have  been  self-evident  from  the  begin- 
ning ;  that  Paul  knew  much  more  of  the  biographical  details  related  in  the 
Gospels  than  he  mentions.  The  relationship  between  the  historical  Christ 
and  the  spiritual  Christ  (the  Christ  of  history  and  of  experience)  is  always 
one  of  the  problems  of  the  Christian  life — but  a  careful  consideration  of  our 
own  experience  will  certainly  establish  the  fact  that  our  understanding  and 
interpretation  of  the  Lord  whom  we  know  in  experience  is  constantly  limited 
and  modified  by  what  we  know  of  His  earthly  life.  Indeed,  our  best  ground 
of  assurance  that  we  do  know  Christ  in  experience  is  that  the  experience  is 
in  line  with  what  we  have  learned  to  expect  from  Him  by  His  life  revealed 
in  the  Gospels.  This  is  our  safeguard  against  erratic  mysticism.  The 
difference  in  Paul's  experience  was  that  He  knew  the  exalted  Christ  first ; 
afterwards,  and  in  a  secondary  way,  the  Christ  of  history.  For  discussion 
of  literature,  see  Knowling,   Test,  of  Paul  to  Christ,  pp.  496  ff. 

2  See  Stevens'  s  Pauline  Theol. ,  p.  206.     Cf.  1  Cor.  xv,  8. 


236  GOSPEL  NARRATIVES 

not  imply  that  he  does  not  believe  or  value  facts  which  he 
does  not  particularly  emphasize  in  his  teaching.  He 
knows  well  that  Jesus  died  before  He  rose  again,  and  was 
born  and  lived  and  taught  before  He  died.  There  is  avast 
amount  of  undeveloped  biographical  material  in  the  back- 
ground of  Paul's  thought. *  His  thought  is  most  deeply 
concerned  with  the  eternal  Christ,2  but  he  has  by  no 
means  forgotten  the  historical  Jesus. 

Neither  must  we  ignore  the  peculiar  bent  of  Paul's 
mind.  He  was  a  practical  theologian.  He  was  engaged 
in  succession  upon  the  problems  of  Christian  thought 
and  life.  He  died  in  the  midst  of  his  work.  He  had 
never  dealt  systematically  with  the  problem  of  the  historic 
and  spiritual  Christ  nor  with  Christ's  sinlessness  in  any  de- 
tail. It  is  perfectly  true,  however,  as  Stevens  says  : 3  "  We 
can  only  say,  then,  that  although  there  is  no  evidence 
that  Paul  reflected  upon  this  problem  (the  supernatural 
birth),  it  is  certain  that  he  not  only  affirms  nothing  which 
is  inconsistent  with  the  supernatural  conception,  but  that 
on  no  other  supposition  can  his  statements  concerning 

xSee  Stevens's  Pauline  T/ieoL,  p.  208  and  references.  Also  Mathews' 
Messianic  Hope  in  N.   T.,  p.  169. 

2  This  is  perhaps  the  chief  reason  for  Paul's  comparative  silence  as  to  the 
biographical  details  of  the  Gospel.  His  message  was  preeminently  con- 
cerned with  the  living  Christ,  as  power  rather  than  example,  as  present 
experience  rather  than  memory.  "  To  know  this  exalted  Christ,  to  under- 
stand the  present  direction  of  His  will,  to  be  governed  by  Him  as  an  active 
force,  to  be  so  lived  in  by  Him  as  to  lose  self  in  serving  as  a  vehicle  for 
the  life  of  Christ,  this  was  worth  more  than  any  reminiscences  of  what  He 
had  said  and  done  in  other  days.  St.  Paul's  conviction  about  Jesus 
Christ  was  that  He  was  a  being  of  heavenly  origin.  He  had  no  fantastic 
notions  about  the  unreality  of  His  human  nature :  His  death  and  resur- 
rection could  not  have  had  the  meaning  which  they  bore  for  St.  Paul  if 
they  had  been  to  him  anything  but  realities  of  the  most  entirely  practical 
kind.  But  St.  Paul  had  no  doubt  that  Jesus  Christ  was  something  higher 
first,  and  man  afterwards."     Mason,  Cam.  Theol.  Essays,  p.  427. 

3  Ibid,  p.   212. 


EXEGETICAL    CONSTRUCTION  OF  THE  SECTIONS    237 

Christ's  sinlessness,  on  the  one  hand,  and  universal  human 
sinfulness  on  the  other,  be  so  well  adjusted  and  har- 
monized. " 

The  conclusion  from  the  discussion  is  that  we  have  no 
warrant  for  supposing  that  there  was  in  any  mature 
apostle's  mind  any  other  belief  than  the  one  which  we 
have  been  taught,  that  Jesus  was  supernaturally  begotten, 
and  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary.1 2 

1  Lack  of  emphasis  upon  the  miraculous  birth  was  due  partly  to  the 
strong  emphasis  placed  upon  the  death  of  Christ.  This  received  more  atten- 
tion even  from  John  than  the  Incarnation  by  itself.  Cf.  Denney,  Death  of 
Christ,  p.  317. 

2  The  argument  in  the  text  has  been  conducted  upon  the  assumption  that 
Paul  ignores  the  supernatural  birth  of  Christ  altogether.  It  should  be 
remarked,  however,  that  this  assumption  is  by  no  means  above  question. 
Prof.  Briggs  has  called  attention  to  the  fact  that  Paul's  statements  really 
imply  the  virgin  birth  and  go  beyond  it. 

It  would  be  difficult  to  show  how  Paul's  theory  of  Christ  as  the  heavenly 
Man  could  be  reconciled  with  any  interpretation  of  a  natural  generation. 

Moreover,  in  every  instance  in  which  Paul  refers  to  the  birth  of  Christ, 
he  uses  an  unusual  word  in  that  connection. 

Instead  of  using  yevvau  or  its  derivatives  which  is  the  familiar  Septuagint 
form  (yfw?/roc  ywaiKOc)  we  have  yevo/uevog  ek  ywain6<?-"  made  of  a  woman  " 
(Gal.  iv,  4 ;  Rom.  i,  3).  Dr.  Knowling  says,  concerning  the  passage  in 
Romans :  "  It  does  not  seem  an  unfair  inference  that  by  this  particular 
phraseology  St.  Paul  may  really  be  intimating  the  fact  that  he  was  quite 
aware  that  something  was  attached  to  the  birth  of  our  Lord  which  demanded 
an  unusual  mode  of  expression."  {Testimony  of  St.  Paul  to  Christ, 
Scribner's,  1905,  p.  313.)  On  this  same  word  Sanday  and  Headlam  (Com. 
on  Romans,  in  loco)  say  :  "  This  word  denotes,  as  usually,  transition  from 
one  state  or  mode  of  subsistence  to  another  (Sp.  Com.  on  I  Cor.  i,  30)  ; 
it  is  rightly  paraphrased  (who)  was  born,  and  is  practically  equivalent  to 
the  Johannean  k Wovroq  elg  tov  k6g\iov.  "  The  expression  involves  the  pre- 
existence,  and  connects  this  closely  with  the  birth,  making  of  the  latter  the 
mode  of  transition  from  one  state  of  subsistence  to  another.  This  really 
involves  a  supernatural  birth. 

The  phrase  in  Galalians  (iv,  4),  taken  in  connection  with  the  context, 
has  been  well  called  St.  Paul's  "  Gospel  of  the  Infancy  " :  "When  the  full- 
ness of  the  time  came,  God  sent  forth  His  Son,  born  of  a  woman,  born  under 


238  GOSPEL  NARRATIVES 

The  exegetical  construction  of  the  narratives  on  a  fair 
basis  of  adjustment,  and  by  substantial  critical  methods, 
results  in  exhibiting  their  harmony  with  each  other  and 
with  the  rest  of  the  New  Testament. 

We  are  more  than  justified,  then,  in  claiming  that  the 
interpretation  of  the  accounts  as  substantially  historical 
is  attended  with  less  serious  difficulties  than  any  other 
hypothesis. 

the   law  that   He  might  redeem  them  that  were  under  the  law,  that  we 
might  receive  the  adoption  of  sons.  " 

The  reference  here  to  the  story  of  the  Infancy  as  found  in  Luke's  Gospel 
is  so  clear  that  one  critic  has  raised  the  question  whether  the  Infancy  narra- 
tive was  not  an  outgrowth  of  Paul's  statement  At  any  rate,  we  are  justified 
in  the  assertion,  that  it  is  by  no  means  certain  that  Paul  makes  no  reference 
to  the  miraculous  birth,  and  it  is  at  least  certain  that  he  nowhere  denies  or 
contradicts  it. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

THE   UNIQUENESS     OF    CHRIST    IN     ITS     BEARING     UPON   THE 
QUESTION    OF    HIS    BIRTH 

The  person  of  Christ  is  the  central  problem  of  history, 
criticism,  and  theology.  All  the  difficulties  of  critical  and 
constructive  thinking  center  in  Him. 

It  is  impossible  to  exclude  the  consideration  of  Him 
from  any  broad  and  rational  attempt  to  interpret  human 
life  and  the  world  in  their  relationship  to  the  individual 
and  to  God.  For  the  man  who  would  "understand  human 
nature,  human  life,  and  human  history,  there  is  no  escape 
from  the  necessity  of  attempting  to  interpret  Him,  who,  in 
the  plan  of  God  and  in  the  actual  working  of  Providence, 
occupies  a  central  and  commanding  position  in  relation- 
ship to  all  the  facts  which  must  be  passed  in  review. 

Of  course,  it  is  inevitable  that  the  study  of  such  a  char- 
acter and  such  a  life  should  present  manifold  difficulties. 
From  these,  there  is  no  escape  in  any  direction. 

The  affirmations  of  faith,  and  the  negations  of  unbelief, 
alike  raise  questions  that  cannot  be  answered,  and  lead  to 
difficulties  that  cannot  be  solved.  Mystery,  inscrutable 
and  unfathomable,  is  involved  in  any  opinion  or  statement 
concerning  Christ. !  The  man  who  would  escape  from 
mystery  must  cease  from  thinking.  The  controversy, 
which  has  centered  about  the  person  of  Christ  since  the 
days  of  the  apostles,  is  simply  one  of  measurement  of  His 

1Cf.  Bruce,  Humiliation  of  Christ,  p.  235. 

239 


240  GOSPEL   NARRATIVES 

greatness.  The  attempt  to  place  Him,  in  His  relationship 
to  God,  and  to  man,  and  to  history,  involves  the  total 
mystery  of  being,  carries  with  it  sweeping  affirmations  in 
all  spheres  of  thought,  and  is  bound  to  issue  in  contro- 
versy. With  these  questions,  religion  has  little  to  do.  An 
unsolvable  mystery  to  the  intellect,  Jesus  is  perfectly  plain 
to  the  heart,  and  His  answer  to  religious  instinct  is  so 
complete  and  satisfying  that  the  average  Christian  is  con- 
tent to  live  in  the  light  of  His  face,  and  leave  the  baffling 
question   to  those  who  delight  in  such  questions. 

Nevertheless,  it  remains  true  that  Jesus  could  not  mean 
so  much  to  the  heart,  if  He  were  not  at  the  same  time  a 
problem  to  the  intellect. 1  And  the  constant  exercise  of 
the  mind  upon  the  questions  suggested  by  His  character 
and  life  invests  His  person  with  unfailing  interest,  and 
brings  men  constantly  back  to  the  vitalizing  experience 
of  fresh  and  intimate  contact  with  Him.  And  out  of  this 
study,  baffling  as  it  is,  new  light  and  life  for  men  contin- 
ually issue.  Christ  baffles  only  to  allure,  and  allures 
only  to  enrich.  Our  statements  concerning  Him  only 
approach  the  truth,  they  never  altogether  reach  it,  but  in 
that  approach  consists  to  many  of  us,  more  and  more,  all 
the  light  and  glory  and  meaning  of  existence. 

In  the  chapter  which  follows,  I  shall  stop  far  short  of 
any  attempt  to  interpret  anew  the  mystery  of  Christ.  I 
could  not  do  it,  if  I  would,  and  for  the  purpose  in  hand,  I 
do  not  need  to  do  it.  I  propose  basing  the  conclusions  to 
which  I  have  been  led,  upon  the  facts,  which  seem  to  me 
beyond  the  reach  of  controversy ;  and  I  have  introduced 
the  discussion  by  the  considerations  outlined  above  in 
order  to  steady  my  own  mind,  and  the  mind  of  the  reader, 
with  the  thought  that  we  are  now  moving  in  a  region 
where  the  mysteries  of  existence  center  and  have  their 

1  See  Fairbairn,  Ph.  Chr.  Religion,  Introduction. 


THE    UNIQUENESS   OF  CHRIST  24 1 

home,  as  clouds  dwell  perpetually  about  lofty  mountain 
summits. 

It  behooves  one  to  act  with  caution,  to  put  the  feet 
firmly  upon  ascertained  facts,  and  to  be  content  to  move 
forward  slowly  and  carefully. 

That  Christ  was  unique  among  men  ;  that  He  still  stands 
alone  and  unapproachable  in  person  and  work,  needs  little 
more  than  thoughtful  exposition;  it  can  scarcely  need 
extended  argument.  It  is  universally  conceded  by  all 
competent  and  fair-minded  students  that,  in  the  advent  of 
Jesus  Christ,  the  world  experienced  something  altogether 
new,  and  that  in  His  character  and  life  and  influence,  we 
have  something  absolutely  different,  not  only  in  degree, 
but  in  kind,  from  anything  that  has  been  seen  before  or 
since. 

This  is  a  broad  basis  for  argument,  but  we  have  a  right 
to  insist  upon  it  as  the  primary  and  elementary  conclusion 
to  which  the  study  of  the  life  of  Christ  leads. 

In  the  discussion  now  entered  upon,  I  shall  endeavor 
simply  to  follow  this  premise  to  its  ultimate  and  logical 
outcome,  and  nothing  more.  I  shall  not  claim  that  He  is 
divine  in  the  absolute  sense,  nor  even  that  He  is  sinless, 
but  only  that  He  is  unique. 

In  what  does  His  uniqueness  consist?  It  consists  in 
practically  all  that  He  was  and  did.  His  life  is  the  revela- 
tion of  a  person,  such  as  we  have  never  known  in  life,  and 
cannot  find  any  slightest  trace  of  in  the  annals  of  human 
history.  The  authors  of  the  Gospels  have  given  us  the 
portrait  of  a  unique  person. 

Jesus  is  unique  in  His  historical  influence.  Not  only 
was  He  while  He  was  alive,  and  for  some  time  after  He 
left  the  world,  but  He  is  now.  His  influence  to-day  is 
greater  than  at  any  time  since  He  came. 

The  Christian  Church  is  usually  looked  upon  as  an 
16 


242  GOSPEL  NARRATIVES 

argument  against  Christianity,  but,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  it 
is  a  most  wonderful  tribute  to  His  personality  and  influ- 
ence. If  the  church  were  compared  only  with  other 
human  institutions,  it  would  be  more  highly  honored,  but 
it  is  brought  continually  into  comparison  with  Christ,  and 
with  the  ideal  presented  in  His  life  and  teaching,  and,  in 
this  comparison,  the  most  severe  that  could  be  imagined, 
suffers  well-nigh  total  eclipse. 

But  it  is  the  church  which  has  accepted  the  ideal  of 
Christ,  has  cherished  it,  and  forced  it  upon  the  world.  The 
church  has  held  up  Christ  even  to  its  own  condemnation. 
No  one  is  so  sensitive  to  the  shortcomings  of  the  church 
as  her  own  members.  The  most  severe  sentences  of  con- 
demnation for  her  failure  to  embody  the  spirit  of  Christ 
are  spoken  by  those  who  confess  those  failures  as  their 
own.  And  when  all  allowances  have  been  made,  the 
church  still  stands  alone  in  the  intensity  of  her  devotion 
to  the  ideal,  and  in  the  greatness  of  her  contributions  to 
the  good  of  man. 

The  church  is  a  world-wide,  fraternal  organization  of 
nearly  every  tribe  of  men,  of  all  social  grades,  among 
whom  are  thousands  who  love  Christ  with  absolute  and 
absorbing  devotion,  who  hold  themselves  and  all  that  they 
have  in  trust  for  the  good  of  men  for  His  sake. 

By  this  organization,  a  vast  and  costly  machinery  is 
maintained  for  the  purpose  of  self  instruction  in  the  princi- 
ples of  Christ,  and  millions  of  dollars  are  annually  ex- 
pended for  the  purely  unselfish  purpose  of  bringing  the 
Gospel  of  Christ  to  the  needy  parts  of  the  earth. 

Through  all  this,  the  influence  of  Christ  is  supreme.  He 
stands  alone  in  the  sway,  which  He  exercises  over  the 
minds  of  His  followers.1  He  is  unique  among  the  founders 

1  See  Orr,  Ch.  View,  Am.  ed.,  p.  41,  and  note,  p.  389  ;  Fairbairn,  Phil. 
Christ  ReL,  p.  287. 


THE    UNIQUENESS   OF  CHRIST  243 

of  religions  in  that  His  personality  is  inseparable  from  the 
ideas  which  He  taught,  and  the  influence  which  He  wields. 
His  influence  is  unique  also,  and  in  this,  it  seems  to  me, 
most  of  all,  in  that  His  ideas  and  ideals  are  opposed  to 
some  of  the  strongest  elementary  passions  of  the  human 
heart,  and  yet  have  increasingly  prevailed  in  the  historic 
struggle  of  humanity,  and  in  the  conflict  of  ideas.  Moham- 
med's power,  and  the  secret  of  his  influence,  lay  in  the 
skillfulness  of  his  appeal  to  ordinary  human  nature,  whose 
weaknesses  and  foibles  he  read  like  a  open  book.1 

Jesus  enforced  ethical  principles,  the  acceptance  of  which 
depends  upon  a  complete  change  of  the  inward  being. 
And  yet  the  ethics  of  Jesus  have  increasingly  prevailed 
in  the  minds  of  men.  His  law  of  love,  His  principle  of 
brotherhood,  His  ideal  of  purity,  have  won  their  way  to 
acceptance  through  the  overwhelming  influence  of  His 
personal  character  and  example. 

The  influence  of  Jesus  may  be  followed  through  history, 
as  a  river  may  be  followed  to  its  source,  back  to  its  be- 
ginning in  His  life  upon  earth.  And  throughout  its  entire 
course,  it  is  recognizable  as  the  same.  Wherever  men 
have  come  closely  into  contact  with  Him,  they  exhibit  the 
same  general  characteristics.  Even  in  the  dark  ages  of 
Christianity's  moral  eclipse,  there  were  some  who  walked 
with  Him,  though  in  the  shadow.  And  they  were  marked, 
as  all  His  genuine  followers  have  been,  by  a  strong  faith 
in  the  Unseen,  by  passionate  devotion  to  the  ethically 
ideal,  and  by  activity  in  the  service  of  mankind,  especially 
the  poor  and  weak.  And  all  this  leads  us  back  to  the 
fact  of  the  Gospels — that  contact  with  the  person  of  Jesus 
transformed  a  humble  group  of  men,  in  no  way  extraor- 
dinary, into  the  builders  of  a  new  era,  and  the  perpetual 
moral  leaders  of  mankind. 

1  See  Mozley  on  Miracles  (2d  edition),  p.  179. 


244  GOSPEL   NARRATIVES 

Jesus  was  unique  in  His  teaching.1  I  do  not  intend  by 
this  statement  to  imply  that  every  truth  spoken  by  Jesus 
was  then  uttered  for  the  first  time.  Scholars  have  spent 
years  in  ransacking  the  literary  remains  of  Jewish,  Egyp- 
tian, Chinese,  and  Indian  sages,  to  find  utterances  similar 
to  those  of  Christ ;  and  what  have  they  succeeded  in  doing  ? 
They  have  simply  made  clear  the  unique  comprehensive- 
ness of  the  mind  of  Jesus,  for  they  have  shown  that  the 
scattered  thoughts  of  the  wisest  men  of  many  countries 
and  many  centuries  are,  in  His  teaching,  gathered  together, 
framed  into  an  ordered  structure,  and  brought  into  vital 
relationship  with  the  great  regulative  principles  of  thought.2 
Jesus  was  a  unique  teacher  in  the  fullness  and  com- 
prehensiveness of  His  thought,  in  the  condensed  pregnancy 
of  His  expression,  in  the  vividness  and  truthfulness  of  His 
illustrations,  in  the  completeness  of  His  authoritative  inter- 
pretation of  the  great  realities  of  the  spiritual  life  and  the 
unseen  world,  in  His  exposition  of  the  significance  and 
sacredness  of  common  things,  and,  most  of  all,  in  His 
revelation  of  God  and  the  human  soul,  and  their  mutual 
relationship. 

It  is  difficult  to  see  why  the  teaching  of  Jesus  should 
not  be  final  and  absolute.  His  whole  exposition  of  spiritual 
things  is  so  complete  and  perfect,  the  entire  scheme  of  His 
teaching  is  so  comprehensive  and  so  lofty  that  it  is  incon- 
ceivable that  the  mind  should  outgrow  it ;  but  I  do  not 
insist  upon  this.  All  that  I  care  to  urge  is  that  His  teach- 
ing is  unique  and  unparalleled. 

Jesus  was  unique  in  character.  He  was  incomparably 
and  indisputably  the  flower  of  humanity.     It  was  not  only 

1  Stalker,  Christology  of  Jesus,  chapter  i.  Forrest,  Christ  of  History  and 
Experience,  pp.  io  and  seq.  Bruce,  Apologetics,  p.  49.  Fairbairn,  Phil. 
Chr.  Pel.,  bk.  II,  pt.  i,  ch.  iv. 

2  Fairbairn,  Phil.  Chr.  Pel.,  p.  381. 


THE    UNIQUENESS   OF  CHRIST  245 

that  His  life  was  deeper  and  fuller  and  richer  than  that  of 
other  men,  but  there  was  in  Him  a  generic  difference  of 
type.  Love  was  enthroned  in  His  life,  and  with  that 
central  principle  His  entire  being  moved  in  accord.  There 
was  no  inconsistency  anywhere  in  His  life  with  this  dom- 
inant principle. 

There  was  in  Him  not  only  moral  elevation,  but  an 
absolute  moral  unity,  a  perfect  self-consistency.  His  whole 
life,  in  all  its  activities  and  manifestations,  flowed  forth  from 
one  central  fountain.  Mind,  heart,  and  will  moved  together 
in  smooth  harmonious  unity  and  interflow.  There  was  in 
Him  also  a  unique  combination  and  balance  of  qualities. 
Men  uniformly  have  the  defects  of  their  virtues.  In 
Jesus,  qualities  usually !  looked  upon  as  inconsistent  and 
mutually  exclusive,  were  united  in  their  fullest  perfection. 
He  united  lofty  spirituality  with  humaneness.  He  lived 
in  the  unseen  world,  but  also  close  to  His  brethren  on  the 
earth.  He  had  an  ardent  hatred  for  sin  together  with  an 
equally  ardent  love  for  the  sinner.  He  had  intense  con- 
victions, but  was  without  bigotry.  He  was  meek  and  sub- 
missive, but  without  weakness.  He  was  on  occasion  severe 
and  even  passionate,  but  never  vindictive,  narrow,  or  sel- 
fish. He  had  broad  visions,  but  was  practical  in  His 
methods  of  carrying  them  out, — at  once  a  visionary  and  a 
builder. 

Jesus  was  also  unique  in  His  self-consciousness  2  and  in 
His  relationship  to  God.  It  was  not  merely  that  He  had 
a  clearer  sense  of  His  divine  Sonship  than  other  men, 
although  this  is  true.  It  was  not  merely  that  He  lived 
more  completely  than  others  the  filial  life,  although  this 

1  See  Bushnell's  famous  chapter  in  Nature  and  the  Supernatural, 
chapter  x. 

2  See  Forrest,  Christ  of  History  and  Experience,  chap,  i ;  also  summary 
in  Orr,  Christian  View  of  God  and  the  World,  pp.  24  and  sea. 


246  GOSPEL  NARRATIVES 

also  is  true.  The  difference  in  His  self-consciousness  goes 
far  deeper  than  this.  It  is  a  general  law  of  the  spiritual 
life  that  the  sense  of  sin  increases  in  exact  proportion  with 
the  increase  of  spiritual  vision  and  moral  goodness.  The 
best  men,  the  prophets  and  saints  and  apostles  of  holiness 
and  faith,  have  felt  most  keenly  and  have  confessed  most 
frankly  their  sense  of  failure  in  the  attempts  so  earnestly 
made  to  embody  the  ideal. 

Jesus  stood  far  and  away  above  all  these  in  His  devotion 
to  the  ideal,  and  in  the  clear  penetration  of  His  spiritual  in- 
sight. He  was  peculiarly  sensitive  in  His  moral  nature, 
ardent  in  His  love  of  goodness,  equally  ardent  in  His  hatred 
of  sin,  keen  in  His  discrimination  of  character,  searching 
in  His  analysis  of  motives,  emphasizing  above  all  others  the 
importance  of  the  inward  life,  locating  sin  not  merely  in 
action,  but  in  thought  and  feeling,  and  yet,  all  this  without 
the  consciousness  of  personal  sin.  Of  this,  there  can  be 
no  question.  There  is  no  hint  from  the  beginning  to  the 
end  of  His  life  as  recorded  in  the  Gospels,  of  anything  like 
the  confession  of  sin  or  the  sense  of  it.  I  do  not  argue 
from  this  that  He  was  sinless  in  the  absolute  sense, 
although  I  believe  it,  but  only  that  His  self-consciousness 
was  absolutely  unique.  No  other  man  who  ever  lived, 
would  have  dared  to  lift  his  eyes  to  heaven,  as  Jesus  did, 
and  say,  "  Father,  I  have  finished  the  work  Thou  gavest 
Me  to  do,"  without  being  at  once  absurd  and  blasphemous. 

His  whole  bearing  toward  God  was  that  of  one  whose 
loyalty  was  without  a  flaw,  and  in  whom  perfect  love  had 
cast  out  fear  and  misgiving. 

Jesus  was  also  unique  in  His  power  to  mediate  the  life 
of  God  to  men.  I  am  not  contending  that  He  was  Him- 
self divine,  in  the  metaphysical  sense  the  Son  of  God,  but 
that  to  Him  was  granted,  as  to  no  other,  the  power  to 
make  men  conscious  of  their  sonship  to  God. 


THE    UNIQUENESS   OF  CHRIST  247 

That  Jesus  is  the  one  absolute  Saviour,  the  only  medi- 
ator between  God  and  man  may  seem  to  some  over  much 
to  affirm,  but  it  practically  comes  to  the  same  thing,  for 
no  other  has  had  the  ability  confessedly  belonging  to 
Jesus,  to  reveal  the  Fatherhood  in  God  and  the  sonship  in 
man.  Many,  who  have  philosophical  misgivings  over 
sweeping  statements  as  to  the  centrality  of  Christ  in  the 
religious  life,  admit  that  since  His  day  no  one  has  become 
united  to  God  except  through  Him.1 

We  have  then  in  the  Gospels  the  portrait  of  a  unique 
person,  altogether  human,  and  yet  unlike  any  other 
human  being  ever  seen  upon  the  earth.  He  was  unique 
in  His  historical  influence,  in  His  teaching,  in  His  char- 
acter, in  His  self-consciousness,  in  His  power  to  mediate 
the  life  of  God.  And  yet  He  is  no  monster  in  spite  of 
His  strangeness.  He  is  a  living  person,  vivid,  lifelike,  real 
and  winsome.  No  one  can  possibly  question  that  the 
portraiture  of  Christ  in  the  Gospels  is  a  most  wonderful 
creation. 

Now  the  same  persons,  who  have  given  us  this  incom- 
parable delineation  of  the  unique  Christ,  have  also  given 
us  the  story  of  a  life,  the  achievements  and  incidents  of 
which  harmonize  perfectly  with  the  character  which  they 
have  portrayed.  The  life  thus  narrated  is  consonant  in 
every  particular  with  the  recognized  uniqueness  of  His 
character,  work,  and  influence.  They  describe  One,  who  is 
shown  to  be  by  His  experiences  and  His  deeds,  such  a 
one  as  is  also  indicated  by  the  place  He  occupies  and  the 
influences  he  wields.2 

1  Orr,  ibid,  p.  393,  note  D. 

2  "  General  history,  if  it  cannot  verify  the  fact  of  the  virgin  birth,  verifies 
the  dogma  as  appearing  in  the  most  primitive  Christian  Creed,  not  later  than 
the  middle  of  the  second  century,  as  the  unanimous  consensus  of  the  Chris- 
tian Church  in  all  its  great  historical  organizations  until  the  present  time, 
as  a  dogma  which  has  determined  the  history  of  Christian  doctrine,  and 


248  GOSPEL   NARRATIVES 

They  describe  One,  whose  entrance  into  the  world, 
whose  course  of  action  during  His  stay  in  the  world,  whose 
departure  from  the  world,  was  as  unique  and  unexampled 
as  the  person  of  whom  the  incidents  are  recorded. 

The  evangelists  state  that  Jesus  entered  into  the  world 
by  a  virgin  birth,  that  He  wrought  miracles  of  love  and 
power,  that  He  passed  through  death  by  resurrection,  and 
entered  into  the  unseen  by  ascension. 

Of  any  other  person,  such  statements  would  seem 
impossible  of  belief,  but  with  what  we  actually  know  of 
the  character  and  life  of  Jesus,  they  are  homogeneous  and 
congruous. 

If  it  be  urged  that  the  miraculous  elements  in  this 
story  are  merely  accidental  and  adventitious,  the  only 
reasonable  answer  is  a  flat  denial.  The  miracles  are  of 
the  substance  of  the  Gospel.1  They  form  an  integral  and 
vital  part  of  Christ's  self-revelation.  They  are  inseparably 
bound  up  with  His  teaching.  They  are  as  unique  and 
inimitable  as  His  personality.  They  enter  into  the  fabric 
of  the  delineation,  and  are  interwoven  with  its  very  sub- 
stance.    Now,  into  the  structural  framework  of  the  life  of 

through  Christian  doctrine  the  Christian  Church  and  Christian  civilization 
for  nineteen  centuries.  It  is  not  possible  to  explain  the  history  of  the  world 
without  recognizing  that  there  is  a  God  in  history,  and  that,  to  use  the 
words  of  Lessing,  '  the  history  of  the  world  is  the  divine  education  of  the 
race.'  It  is  not  possible  to  explain  Christian  history  without  the  recog- 
nition of  Christ  in  history,  and  if  Christ,  then  what  Christianity  has  always 
recognized  Christ  to  be,  the  Incarnate  Saviour,  who  by  virgin  birth  identi- 
fied Himself,  once  for  all  and  forever,  not  with  an  individual  man,  but  with 
human  nature,  as  the  Head  of  redeemed  humanity.  These  things  are  dog- 
mas interpreting  history,  which  cannot  be  verified  by  historical  criticism 
as  realities  attested  by  the  human  senses  and  human  experience  ;  but,  with- 
out them,  Christian  history  is  unintelligible,  inexplicable,  a  mass  of  hetero- 
geneous facts  and  events  without  harmony  and  without  unity."  (Briggs, 
N.  A.  Review,  June,  1906.  Art.  Crit.  and  Dog.  Virgin  Birth,  pp.  869-70.) 
1  Bruce,  Mir.  Element  in  Gospels,  pp.  118-119.  Trench.,  Miracles,  pp. 
80-81. 


THE    UNIQUENESS   OF  CHRIST  249 

Jesus,  the  virgin  birth  perfectly  fits.1  If  it  is  an  invention, 
it  is  a  marvelously  felicitous  one. 

It  has  been  objected  that  the  virgin  birth  was  not 
necessary  to  constitute  Jesus  a  unique  person.  This  is 
done  by  His  relationship  to  the  Father  in  His  life,  by  the 
divine  election  and  His  response  to  it. 

It  has  been  argued  also  that  the  Resurrection  was  not 
necessary  to  constitute  Jesus  the  Saviour  of  man.  He 
might  have  passed  into  the  unseen  world  just  as  other 
men  do,  leaving  His  body  behind,  and  yet  reveal  the 
moral  power  which  should  enable  men  to  conquer  the 
fear  of  death.  Schliermacher 2  placed  the  virgin  birth  and 
the  Resurrection  exactly  on  a  level,  holding  that  belief  in 
neither  was  necessary  to  faith. 

It  is  clear,  however,  that  the  question  of  the  Resurrection 
vitally  involves  the  trustworthiness  of  the  disciples.  Paul 
has  argued  this  convincingly  in  the  fifteenth  chapter  of 
First  Corinthians, 3  where  he  places  the  alternatives  over 
against  each  other — no  resurrection,  no  trustworthy  testi- 
mony. 

And  to  close  study,  it  has  become  evident  that  Christ's 
conquest  over  death  necessarily  involves  such  a  miracle 
in  the  material  realm  as  should  break  forever  the  dismal 
tyranny  of  sense. 

In  like  manner  and  with  equal  force,  it  has  been  urged 
that  Christ  might  have  been  revealed  as  the  Son  of  God 
with  power  to  save  without  His  working  any  physical 
miracle,  and  that  in  rejecting  the  miraculous  altogether, 
we  leave  untouched  the  substance  of  His  character  and 
work. 

1Cf.  Van  Oosterzee,  Person  and  Work  of  the  Redeemer,  p.  149.  The 
Miraculous  Birth  Natural. 

'Der  Christliche  Glaube,  vol.  ii,  67,  seq. 
3  1  Cor.  xv,  15. 


250  GOSPEL   NARRATIVES 

To  this,  the  answer  must  be  returned  that,  as  has  already 
been  said,  the  miraculous  is  an  essential  part  of  the  record 
so  vitally  interwoven  with  the  entire  fabric  of  testimony  to 
Christ,  that  it  cannot  be  eliminated  without  loosening  all 
the  threads.  In  addition  to  this,  it  must  be  said  that  with- 
out miracle  as  an  element  of  His  character  and  mission, 
the  original  establishment  of  belief  in  Him  would  have 
been  impossible. 

Again,  when  it  is  argued  that  Jesus  may  be  received  as 
the  Son  of  God  without  the  miraculous  birth,  I  answer : 
Theoretically,  this  is  true,  just  as  it  is  that  Jesus  might  be 
received  as  the  Son  of  God  without  miracle,  and,  as  the 
Conqueror  of  Death  without  the  Resurrection,  but  that  He 
was  not  thus  constituted  is  a  part  of  the  record — an  ele- 
ment in  that  first  testimony  to  Him  by  those  who  were 
eyewitnesses  of  His  glory,  which  is  our  reliance.  And  it 
seems  to  me  that  it  might  be  argued,  in  addition,  that  a 
miracle  in  the  physical  realm  was  necessary  to  indicate 
a  new  beginning  in  humanity,  and  to  prepare  for  Him  a 
human  nature  adequate  to  His  self-revelation.  I  am  not 
disposed,  however,  at  this  point,  to  urge  this  proposition, 
but  I  do  urge  that  the  virgin  birth  is  an  integral  and  con- 
gruous item  in  the  unique  life,  which  belongs  to  the  story 
of  the  unique  Person.  It  will  take  strong  arguments  to 
dislodge  it,  for  it  would  be  strange  indeed  if  He,  whose 
person  was  unique,  whose  character  and  influence  were 
unique,  whose  work  was  unique,  whose  experience  in 
death  and  whose  entrance  into  the  unseen  were  also 
unique,  should  have  nothing  out  of  the  ordinary  to  attend 
His  entrance  into  the  world  when,  of  all  times  in  His  life, 
it  would  be  necessary  that  His  importance  to  His  own 
people  and  to  the  race  should  be  unmistakably  indicated. 
There  is  also  some  difficulty  in  believing  that  Christ's 
human    nature,  including   His    body,  the    organ   of  His 


THE    UNIQUENESS   OF  CHRIST  25 1 

human  life,  and  the  instrument  of  His  connection  with  the 
world,  was  not  constituted  in  some  exceptional  manner. 

But  before  taking  up  this  question,  there  is  another  col- 
lateral line  of  reasoning,  which  leads  unmistakably  to  the 
same  conclusion.     To  this  let  us  turn  : — 

The  close  student  of  the  life  of  Christ  is  certain  to 
notice,  sooner  or  later,  two  series  of  facts  running  through 
the  entire  account,  which  he  finds  great  difficulty  in  com- 
bining. No  interpretation  of  the  life  can  be  considered 
satisfactory  which  does  not  find  a  place  for  all  the  facts. 
And  yet  they  seem  to  be  fundamental  antinomies  almost 
impossible  to  bring  within  the  compass  of  any  formula. 
I  have  tried  again  and  again  to  interpret  the  life  of  Christ 
by  the  help  of  some  definite  theory  of  His  person  and 
consciousness,  such  as,  for  example,  the  Kenosis,  but  I 
have  never  yet  been  able  to  find  any  theory  that  would 
cover  all  the  facts,  nor  have  I  read  any  book,  in  which  the 
attempt  was  carried  out  successfully.  And  the  least  sat- 
isfactory and  adequate  of  all  is  any  theory  of  imaginative 
or  legendary  creation.     It  is  contradicted  at  every  step. 

It  is  necessary  here  to  call  attention  to  just  a  few  of  the 
facts.     We  may  begin  with  the  Resurrection. 

It  might  easily  be  urged,  that  the  Resurrection  was 
invented  in  order  to  establish  that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah, 
in  spite  of  the  experience  of  death,  but  no  one  has  been 
able  to  explain,  since  imagination  was  on  the  throne  and 
invention  the  order  of  the  day,  why  the  disciples  did  not 
invent  for  Him  some  miraculous  escape  from  death,  so  that 
they  might  triumphantly  declare  that  death  had  never 
touched  Him,  and  the  smell  of  the  grave  was  never  upon 
Him. 1  Were  they  not  bound  by  the  facts,  this  invention 
would  have  been  far  simpler  and  just  as  effective  for  the 
immediate  purpose. 

1Mark  viii,  31,  32. 


252  GOSPEL   NARRATIVES 

Once  more,  take  the  Transfiguration.  This  might  have 
been  imagined  by  the  disciples  under  the  influence  of  their 
belief  in  the  transcendent  personal  holiness  of  Jesus ;  but 
it  is  very  strange  that  they  should  have  invented  with  it, 
circumstances  which  exhibited  themselves  in  so  poor  a 
light1  and  also  have  combined  with  it,  immediately,  a 
lesson  upon  His  coming  death — a  thought  from  which 
they  bitterly  revolted. 

Once  more,  take  the  feeding  of  the  five  thousand.2 
This  is  one  of  the  nature  miracles,  against  which  rationalism 
is  most  severe.  It  can  easily  be  explained  as  an  imaginary 
incident,  growing  out  of  some  words  of  Jesus  on  the  bread 
of  life,  or  simply  from  the  thought  of  Him  as  the  food  of 
the  soul.  It  was  a  beautiful  dream  of  the  Messiah  dis- 
pensing food  to  the  hungry.  But  it  is  very  strange  that 
this  invented  miracle  should  have  been  the  hinge  upon 
which  is  made  to  turn  a  great  crisis  in  the  life  of  Jesus,5 
one  of  the  most  clearly  established  facts  in  the  entire 
narrative,  involving  a  popular  apostasy  which  left  Jesus 
well  nigh  without  other  following  than  the  original  twelve, 
and  seriously  disturbed  their  peace  of  mind.  Strange 
indeed  it  is  that  a  spurious  miracle,  due  to  the  exagger- 
ated sense  of  Christ's  power,  should  have  been  connected 
with  an  occurrence  by  which  the  structure  of  His  power 
was  shaken  to  the  foundation.  * 

Harnack  has  said :  "  That  a  storm  was  quieted  by  a 
word,  we  do  not  believe,  and  we  shall  never  again 
believe."5  He  must  then,  of  course,  believe  that  it  was 
an  imagination  or  invention  growing  out  of  the  conviction 

1Mark  ix,  5-18  ;  Matt,  xvii,  4-16  ;  Luke  ix,  33-40. 

2  John  vi,  I-14. 

3  John  vi,  56,  60. 

4Cf.  Bruce,   Training  of  the  Twelve  (4th  Ed.  1891),  Chap.  iv. 
5  \V7iat  is  Christianity  ?  p.  30. 


THE    UNIQUENESS   OF  CHRIST  253 

that  Jesus  was  the  ruler  of  nature,  but  it  is  curious  that  in 
the  very  same  account,  they  should  specify  that  He  was 
asleep  in  the  stern  of  the  boat,  and  under  the  power  of  the 
nature,  which  they  assume  that  He  controlled.  Was  it 
natural  and  easy  for  them  to  reconcile  these  two  things, 
as  reconciled  somehow  they  must  have  been  in  their 
minds,  by  the  thought  that  He  was  at  once  man,  and  the 
ruler  of  nature  ?  Any  rationalistic  explanation  as  that  the 
storm  suddenly  ceased  after  the  word  of  Jesus  was  spoken, 
though  not  because  of  it,  does  not  touch  the  real  question 
at  issue  at  all,  for  we  are  dealing  simply  with  the  com- 
pleted product  of  the  imagination.  How  could  they  hold 
those  two  apparently  incongruous  ideas  together,  that 
Jesus  could  control  a  storm,  and  that  He  was  bodily 
weary  and  ruled  by  the  power  of  sleep  ? 

This  same  peculiarity  is  exhibited  in  the  close  conjunc- 
tion in  the  narrative  between  the  Baptism  and  the  Tempta- 
tion.1 Was  the  Baptism,  with  its  accessories  of  the  voice 
and  the  vision,  the  creation  of  imagination  on  fire  with  the 
thought  of  Jesus'  Messianic  purpose  and  mission  ?  Why 
then  should  Jesus  at  once  be  driven  into  the  desert  and 
there  alone,  unfriended  (until  the  conflict  was  over),  be 
fiercely  tempted?  Could  the  Messiah,  upon  whom  the 
heavens  had  opened  and  the  Spirit  of  God  descended,  be 
tempted  to  deny  His  Sonship  and  be  unfaithful  to  His 
trust  ?  What  mind,  exclusively  filled  with  the  sense  of 
Christ's  exaltation  and  unique  relationship  to  God,  could 
at  once  and  immediately  admit  the  thought  that  He  could 
even  hear  the  whispers  of  Satan,  much  less  feel  the  force 
of  His  suggestions  ? 

Now  the   documents  of  the  Infancy  are  full  of  this  same 

1  When  consideration  is  given  to  the  difficulty  which  the  Temptation  has 
always  presented  to  Christian  thought,  the  impossibility  of  its  being  invented 
in  conjunction  with  the  Baptism  will  be  apparent. 


254  GOSPEL  NARRATIVES 

strange  contradiction  which  runs  through  the  entire  Gos- 
pels and  marks  nearly  every  leading  incident.  The  inci- 
dent of  the  visit  to  the  temple,  when  Jesus  was  twelve 
years  old,  has  been  objected  to  on  the  ground  that  it  is 
an  incident  obviously  invented  to  show  that  the  youth  of 
Jesus  was  remarkable  and  prophetic.  If  that  be  so,  it  is 
remarkable  that  the  writer  should  speak  of  Him  as  "  ask- 
ing questions,"  and  should  couple  with  the  incident  the 
statement  that  He  went  home  and  was  subject  to  His  par- 
ents. This  is  an  unexplainable  anomaly  in  an  imaginative 
account  to  picture  the  remarkable  boyhood  of  the  Messiah. 

It  has  been  alleged  that  Matthew  surrounds  the  cradle 
of  Christ  with  royal  splendors,  while  Luke  pictures  it  with 
every  circumstance  of  humility ;  but  Luke  tells  the  story 
of  the  choiring  angels,  and  Matthew  records  the  ignomini- 
ous flight  into  Egypt. 

This  same  contradiction  enters  into  the  story  of  the 
birth.  It  is  argued  that  the  miraculous  conception  is  a 
myth  to  account  for  the  divinity  of  Christ's  person  and 
work.  If  this  is  so,  how  came  it  about  that  this  invention 
is  coupled  with  a  normal  birth  and  a  natural  childhood 
marked  by  growth  in  body,  mind,  and  spirit  ? 

In  all  the  range  of  Christian  thinking,  there  is  nothing 
more  difficult  to  reconcile  with  Jesus'  divinity  than  His 
birth  as  a  child  and  His  growth  in  stature,  knowledge,  and 
grace.  Bold  indeed  must  the  speculator  have  been,  who 
first,  as  a  mere  work  of  the  imagination,  coupled  these 
two  things  together. 

The  considerations  outlined  above,  point  unmistakably 
to  certain  well-defined  conclusions.  What  are  they  ?  We 
have  seen  that  throughout  the  Gospels  (and  the  process 
might  have  been  worked  out  a  great  deal  more  in  detail) 
facts  are  brought  together  logically  impossible  to  correlate. 
Facts  which  indicate  Christ's  transcendence  are  implicated 


THE    UNIQUENESS   OF  CHRIST  255 

with  facts  which  represent  Him  as  a  man  under  limitation. 
Between  these  two  sets  of  facts,  the  ablest  constructive 
minds  of  the  church  in  all  ages  have  vibrated.1 

1  The  difficulty  of  adjusting  these  facts  is  a  permanent  one  in  Christology. 
Here  is  a  recent  statement  of  precisely  this  problem  : — 

"  We  seem,  however,  to  be  in  danger  of  being  placed  in  a  dilemma.  On 
the  one  side,  we  are  directed  solely  to  the  historic  Jesus  and  challenged  to 
face  the  limitations  of  an  age  little  versed  in  the  field  of  scientific  criticism. 
On  the  other,  we  may  be  tempted  so  to  fix  our  gaze  on  the  transcendental 
Christ  of  St.  Paul  and  the  Fourth  Gospel  as  to  neglect  the  gracious  Figure 
of  the  Synoptists,  the  alternative  may  even  be  to  choose  between  a  Christ 
altogether  human,  and  one  altogether  divine.  It  is  a  phase  of  the  old 
question  between  the  Ebionites  with  their  Christ  as  a  Jewish  prophet,  and 
the  Marcionites,  with  their  transcendental  revealer  of  the  Supreme  God 
of  love ;  between  Faul  of  Samosata,  with  his  deified  man,  and  Sabellius 
with  his  economic  manifestation  of  God  ;  between  the  School  of  Antioch, 
with  its  excessive  insistence  upon  the  humanity  of  Christ,  and  that  of 
Alexandria  with  its  devotion  to  Him  as  the  divine  Logos  rather  than  as 
man  ;  between  Professor  Harnack,  with  Christ  as  the  moral  teacher  of 
Galilee,  and  the  Abbe  Loisy  with  the  Jesus  of  the  Gospels  lost  in  the  Christ- 
spirit  working  in  the  Catholic  Church. 

"But  neither  alternative  can  be  accepted  to  the  exclusion  of  the  other. 
The  instinct  which  leads  men  in  all  religious  revivals  back  to  the  historic 
Christ  of  the  Synoptists  is  indeed  a  sound  one  ;  for,  in  a  certain  sense,  the 
figure  of  our  Lord  taking  upon  Himself  the  form  of  a  servant,  and  the 
glorified  Christ  of  a  later  age,  are  equally  divine.  If  we  fail  to  recognize 
this,  the  reason  lies  in  our  own  inability  to  recognize  that  the  essence  of  the 
kingdom  of  God  consists  not  only  of  a  glorified  Monarch  in  heavenly  state, 
but  also  of  a  King,  tending,  guarding,  helping,  toiling  in  and  with  His  sub- 
jects,"  etc.      Cam.  Theol.  Essays,  p.  522. 

The  truth  of  the  matter  is,  that  none,  since  the  writers  of  the  Gospels,  have 
been  able  to  hold  in  perfect  balance  the  two  lines  of  facts  about  Jesus — His 
humanity  and  His  transcendence.  But  they  have.  The  contrast  sometimes 
so  sharply  drawn  between  the  Christ  of  Paul  and  John,  and  the  Jesus  of  the 
Synoptists  is  not  justified  by  the  facts.  Mark's  Gospel  which  is  supposed 
to  be  the  most  primitive,  portrays  Christ  as  the  wonder-working  Son  of 
God  with  greater  emphasis  upon  His  transcendent  power  than  even  John's. 
The  point  of  view  is  different,  but  the  portrait  is  perfectly  consistent.  Mark 
tells  what  Jesus  did  ;  John  tells  how  He  was  able  to  do  what  He  did. 
Mark  tells  the  story;  John  grounds  the  story  in  the  essential  being  of  Jesus. 
But  so  far  as  the  transcendence,  or  the  humility,  the  divinity,  and  the  human- 


V 


256  GOSPEL   NARRATIVES 

Certain  thinkers  have  seen,  with  great  clearness,  those 
facts,  which  exhibit  Christ's  transcendence,  and  are  con- 
vinced believers  in  His  deity,  but  have  great  difficulty  in 
holding  firmly  to  His  real  humanity. 

Others  have  seen  with  equal  clearness  the  facts  which 
bind  Christ  to  His  brethren,  and  hold  with  ardor  to  the 
human  Christ,  but  deny  or  neglect  His  deity. 

The  evangelists  were  true  to  all  the  facts,  and  held  them 
firmly,  never  passing  over  indications  of  Christ's  transcend- 
ence or  His  humanity.  Neither  have  they  wavered  from 
one  side  to  the  other,  portraying  now  a  human,  now  a  super- 
human figure ;  but  they  have  portrayed  one  undivided 
living  Lord,  at  once  human  and  divine. 

And  to  me,  the  conclusion  is  inevitable  that  they  had 
seen  and  known  Him,  and  that  qualities  and  attributes 
seemingly  contradictory  when  considered  in  the  abstract, 
blended  and  were  harmonized  in  His  unique  personality.1 

More  than  this,  we  have  seen  that  the  Infancy  docu- 
ments have  this  peculiar  and  striking  feature  in  common 
with  the  rest  of  the  Gospels.  They  bring  together  into 
one  account,  facts  that  reason  cannot  harmonize,  except  by 
reference  to  Him  in  whom  God  and  man  were  united. 
It  is  an  integral  part  of  one  unique  representation. 

If  the  narrative  was  invented,  in  distinction  from  being 
discovered  or  recorded,  it  was  invented  by  one  who  was 
full  of  the  spirit  of  the  Gospel,  who  carried  engraven 
upon  mind  and  heart  the  authentic  portrait  of  the  unique 
Person,  in  whom  the  antinomies  of  the  divine  and  the 
human  were  blended  and  harmonized. 

ity  of  Jesus  are  concerned,  there  is  little  to  choose  between  Mark  and  John. 
It  is  probably  true  that  no  primitive  disciple  of  Christ,  after  His  life  story 
was  complete,  was  blind  either  to  the  transcendence  or  humility  of  His 
person. 

1  Cf.  Fairbairn,  Phil.  Christ.  ReL,  p.  330  ;  also  p.  327  and  all  of  Chap.  ii. 
Pt.  I,  Bk.  II. 


THE    UNIQUENESS   OE  CHRIST  2$7 

That  which  this  unknown  writer  has  imagined  or  invented 
is  one  in  some  of  its  most  striking  characteristics  with  that 
which,  on  the  whole,  is  acknowledged  to  be  accurate  and 
authentic.  We  are  thus  led  to  one  who  belonged  to  the 
inmost  circle  of  apostolic  thought,  and  possessed  at  the 
same  time  of  a  high  order  of  creative  imagination. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  hypothesis  that  this  part  of 
the  narrative  was  a  mythical  creation  is  utterly  untenable  in 
view  of  what  the  record  actually  contains.  Moreover,  it 
would  seem  that  the  unrestrained  speculation  of  the  dis- 
ciples might  easily  have  moved  in  an  entirely  different 
direction,  without  putting  so  great  a  strain  upon  their 
imaginative  faculty.  If  it  be  true,  as  we  are  assured,  that 
the  early  part  of  Jesus'  life  was  so  obscure  that  no 
authentic  records  were  in  existence  concerning  His  child- 
hood and  youth,  why  did  not  the  disciples  and  the  evan- 
gelists make  the  most  of  that  mystery,  and  represent 
Jesus  as  a  portent  suddenly  appearing  no  one  knew 
whence  ?  That  there  were  expectations  current  among 
the  Jews  into  which  such  an  interpretation  of  Jesus'  early 
life  would  exactly  fit,  we  have  the  clearest  evidence.  The 
Jews  objected  to  Him  on  the  ground  that  they  knew  too 
much  about  Him.  (<1  Howbeit  we  know  this  man  whence 
He  is  :  but  when  Christ  cometh,  no  man  knoweth  whence 
He  is."  That  is,  that  the  Messiah  would  be  utterly 
mysterious  in  His  advent,  appearing  suddenly  without 
ordinary  human  relationships.  This  interpretation  of 
Christ  would  not  be  open  to  some  objections  urged 
against  the  Infancy  section.  The  earliest  critics  of  that 
portion  of  the  Gospel  objected  to  it  on  the  ground  that  it 
reduced  Christ  to  the  dimensions  of  a  man  by  making 
Him  to  be  born  of  a  woman,  and  subject  to  limitation  and 
growth. 

1  John  vii,  27. 
17 


258  GOSPEL  NARRATIVES 

And  if  it  be  urged  that  this  line  of  imaginings  would 
be  impossible  because  the  relatives  of  Jesus  were  well 
known  and  the  facts  of  His  family  and  home  familiar, 
what  becomes  of  the  hypothesis  that  the  earlier  period  of 
His  life  was  so  obscure  that  facts  were  not  attainable,  and 
the  imagination  of  disciples  was  driven  to  creation  by 
dearth  of  information  on  a  subject  in  which  they  were 
deeply  interested. ' 

By  two  relatively  independent  lines  of  reasoning,  we 
have  been  brought  to  see  that  the  narrative  of  the  Infancy 
is  an  integral  and  congruous  part  of  the  portrayal  of 
Christ's  life  in  the  Gospel. 

We  must  now  approach  a  little  closer  to  the  great 
mystery  itself,  in  the  hope  that  to  reverent  and  thought- 
ful inquiry  it  may  disclose  some  of  its  deeper  meanings. 

The  Scripture  is  consistent  in  representing  that  the 
Spirit  of  God  stood  in  unique  relationship  to  Christ 
throughout  His  entire  career-  at  His  conception ; 2  at  His 
birth  ;3  during  His  growth ; 4  in  His  youth ; 5  at  His  Bap- 
tism ; 6  and  throughout  His  ministry.7 

The  objection  which  Keim  urges,  that  the  Infancy  sec- 
tion wrongly  attributes  to  Jesus  in  His  early  life  the  in- 
spiration which  was  bestowed  only  at  the  Baptism,  must 
be  excluded.8 

Whatever  critical  importance  may  be  attributed  to 
the  experience  at  the  Baptism  in  connection  with  Jesus' 
consciousness  of  His  Messiahship,  it  must  have  been 
preceded  by  a  dawning  sense  of  His  Sonship,  and  this 
could    have    been    gained    only   through    the   same    in- 

1  See  Author's  Notes — Note  D  for  discussion  of  this  point. 

2  Luke  i,    35.  3  Luke  ii,  9. 

4  Luke  ii,  40.  5  Luke  ii,   52. 

6  Mark  i,  9-17  ;  Luke  iii,  21,  22;  Matthew  iii,  13-17  ;  John  i,  32-34. 

7  Mark  ix,  2-8  ;  Matthew  xvii,  1-8;  Luke  ix,  28,  ff.,  etc. 

8  See  above  p.  56  and  note  at  end  of  Chap.  iv. 


THE    UNIQUENESS  OF  CHRIST  259 

spiration.  Christ's  understanding  and  acceptance  of 
His  mission  to  His  nation  and  to  the  world  must  have 
been  based  upon  a  previously  developed  consciousness 
that  He  was  in  a  special  sense  the  Son  of  God,  unless  we 
are  to  believe  that  Jesus  received  at  His  baptism  at  once 
and  by  instantaneous  inspiration,  the  knowledge  that  He 
was  the  Son  of  God,  and  also  the  Saviour  of  men,  which 
is  altogether  unlikely.  God  does  not  work  in  that  way. 
If  Jesus  had  already  come  to  the  consciousness  of  His 
Sonship,  it  could  have  been  only  through  the  inspiration 
of  the  Spirit  granted  to  Him  in  the  process  of  His  growth 
in  grace  and  knowledge.  The  representation  of  Luke 
that  in  His  youth  He  had  such  a  special  sense  of  relation- 
ship to  God  as  to  be  able  to  speak  of  "  the  things  of  My 
Father,  "  is  perfectly  correct,  and  lends  force  and  value  to 
his  further  representation  that  the  Spirit  was  especially 
involved  in  the  processes  which  were  necessary  in  order 
to  bring  Christ  into  the  world  as  a  little  child.  This  puts 
the  inspiration  of  God  in  the  life  of  Jesus  back  of  the 
dawn  of  consciousness.  It  may  be  looked  upon  as  a 
mere  obiter  dictum,  or  even  as  the  confession  of  mental 
impotence,  but  I  confess  that  I  see  no  better  way  to  ex- 
plain the  origin  and  early  life  of  Jesus  than  that  given  in 
the  Gospel  of  the  Infancy.  And  the  alternative  theory 
that  Jesus  was  conceived  in  the  ordinaiy  way  and  received 
the  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Spirit  as  other  men,  except  in 
degree,  seems  to  me  utterly  inadequate  to  explain  the 
facts. 

For  one  thing,  we  are  compelled  to  furnish  some  ex- 
planation of  the  difference  between  Jesus,  and  John  the 
Baptist. 

Arguing  from  analogy,  it  would  seem  necessary  to 
postulate  some  essential  difference  in  heredity  and  pre-natal 
influence  to  account  for  the  uniqueness  of  Jesus. 


260  GOSPEL  NARRATIVES 

Never  does  His  uniqueness  become  more  clearly  mani- 
fest than  when  He  is  brought  into  comparison  with  the 
character  and  work  of  John. 

According  to  the  theoiy  which  we  have  been  criticising 
in  these  pages,  Jesus  and  John  were  born  under  practically 
the  same  conditions.  They  were  kinsmen  ;  the  families  be- 
longed to  the  same  circle  of  religious  beliefs ;  the  children 
must  have  received  much  the  same  training. 

John  was  a  remarkable  man — of  this  there  can  be  no 
question.  We  have  the  best  of  authority  for  according  to 
him  a  high  place  among  the  great  men  of  the  world.1  He 
was  the  culminating  representative  of  a  line  of  prophets 
and  thinkers  who  interpreted  the  hope  and  embodied  the 
spirit  of  Israel  at  its  best.  He  gave  to  that  inherited  hope 
a  new  interpretation — with  most  remarkable  self-abnega- 
tion, he  sank  his  own  personality  behind  the  commanding 
figure  of  Jesus,  and  in  accordance  with  his  mission  prepared 
the  way  for  faith  in  Him  by  turning  his  own  disciples  into 
the  path  of  Christian  belief. 

Nevertheless,  paying  all  possible  honor  to  John,  it  is 
yet  saying  little  enough  to  affirm  that  Jesus  was  different 
from  him,  and  superior  to  him  Jesus  moved  in  a  totally 
different  realm.2  His  conception  of  God,  His  interpre- 
tation of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  His  mode  of  life,  the 
method  of  His  approach  to  people,  the  whole  spirit  and 
atmosphere  of  His  thinking  differed  toto  cczlo  from  John's. 
The  most  that  can  be  said  of  John  is  that  although  much 
was  new  in  his  interpretation  of  the  prophetic  message,  he, 
none  the  less  belonged  to  the  old  era  and  never  passed 
into  the  new.  He  gave  his  disciples  to  Jesus,  but  he  him- 
self never  became  a  disciple. 

The  least  that  can  be  said  for  Jesus  is  that  although 

1  Matthew,  xi,  II. 

2  See  Reynolds,  John  the  Baptist,  passim. 


THE    UNIQUENESS   OF  CHRIST  26 1 

there  was  much  of  the  spirit  of  the  prophets  in  His  message, 
He  was  the  inaugurator  of  the  new  era,  and  altogether  of  it 
Himself. 

Now  the  most  striking  fact  in  this  comparison  and  con- 
trast lies  just  here,  that  John,  with  a  touch  of  originality 
due  to  his  personal  quality  and  a  special  divine  endow- 
ment, was  the  natural  product  of  his  heredity,  his  environ- 
ment, and  his  training,  while  Jesus  was  not. 

The  careful  and  studied  attempts  which  have  been 
made  to  connect  Jesus  with  the  mental  life  of  His  age, 
while  it  has  shown  Him  to  be  indebted  to  it  for  certain  of 
the  raw  materials  of  His  thought,  has  only  served  to  bring 
into  clearer  relief  the  daring  originality  of  His  interpre- 
tation and  application  of  historic  beliefs. 

We  come  then  to  the  question  :  How  did  Jesus  come 
to  be  so  different  from  John  ?  John  himself  recognized 
the  difference  between  himself  and  his  kinsman,  and  attrib- 
uted it  to  a  close  relationship  of  the  Spirit  of  God  to  the 
life  of  Jesus  to  which  he,  Spirit-filled  man  though  he  was, 
could  lay  no  claim.  Though  both  were  children  of 
promise,  yet  Jesus  was  Himself  so  much  closer  to  the 
Spirit,  that  His  ministry  was  to  John's  as  fire  to  water.1 
How  was  this  peculiar  relationship  of  the  Spirit  to  Him 
constituted,  and  when  did  it  begin  ?  That  this  peculiar 
relationship  to  the  Spirit  of  God  was  something  that  was 
attained  only  at  maturity  in  an  instant  of  time  at  the  Bap- 
tism, I  find  it  impossible  to  believe.  That  it  could  have 
come  to  be  otherwise  than  by  the  special  implication  of  the 
Spirit  in  all  the  processes  by  which  Jesus  came  to  be,  I 
find  it  equally  impossible  to  believe. 

I  am  not  urging  that  the  virgin  birth  alone  and  of 
itself,  can  explain  the  uniqueness  of  Jesus,  but  that  it  is  one 
of  the  elements  which  must  enter  into  the  explanation,  I 

1  Luke  iii,  15-17. 


262  GOSPEL  NARRATIVES 

cannot  doubt.  There  is  nothing  in  the  two  households  to 
explain  why  Jesus  should  differ  from  John  except  as  one 
individual  of  the  same  general  class  differs  from  another. 
That  the  special  relationship  of  the  Spirit  to  two  individuals 
differing  from  one  another  only  in  a  minor  degree,  is 
enough  to  account  for  differences  so  world-wide  is  at  least 
opposed  to  what  we  know  of  God's  method  in  dealing 
with  men.  That  there  is  much  in  the  circumstances  of 
Jesus'  birth,  as  related  in  Matthew  and  Luke,  to  account 
for  the  phenomena  of  Jesus'  character,  seems  unmistakable. 

Jesus  was  a  new  creation  in  the  midst  of  humanity. 
This  is  all  but  universally  admitted.  But  a  new  creation 
in  humanity  implies  a  great  deal.  It  implies  this  first, 
that  the  physical  organization  of  Jesus  must  have  been 
exceptional  and  extraordinary.  There  is  a  physical  basis 
of  character.  Exceptional  men,  especially  those  who  have 
deeply  influenced  their  fellows,  have  had  not  only  unusual 
brain  capacity,  but  a  finely  organized  physical  constitution. 
The  heights  of  power  are  reserved  to  those  in  whom  body 
and  spirit  are  so  exquisitely  attuned  as  to  make  the  one 
the  perfect  instrument  of  the  other. 

That  Jesus  was  exceptional  in  His  physical  character- 
istics, is  evident  from  many  incidental  touches,  though  the 
disciples  were  very  careful  to  leave  on  record  no  descrip- 
tion of  His  appearance.  But  His  looks,  His  gestures,  His 
attitudes  in  the  presence  of  others,  made  a  deep  impres- 
sion upon  them,  and  evidently  formed  a  part  of  His  equip- 
ment of  power.  That  there  was  in  His  personal  appearance 
a  unique  combination  of  majesty  and  winsomeness,  of  the 
divine  and  the  human  as  inimitable  and  unexplainable  as 
in  His  character  and  life  otherwise  depicted,  the  account 
places  beyond  doubt. 

In  addition  to  this,  the  spiritual  nature  of  Christ  must 
have  been,  equally  with  His  body,  exceptional.     Putting 


THE    UNIQUENESS   OF  CHRIST  263 

aside  the  deeper  mysteries  of  His  nature,  it  is  evident  that 
the  super-material  being  of  the  human  Christ,  who  was  the 
perfect  organ  of  the  eternal  Spirit,  must  have  been  in 
some  sense  a  special  creation  of  God. 

The  uniqueness  of  Jesus  consisted  essentially  on  the  in- 
ward side  in  the  perfect  clearness  of  His  God-consciousness. 
It  does  not  seem  too  much  to  say  that  the  very  ground 
work  of  the  consciousness  of  Jesus  was  the  Spirit  of  God. 

"  It  is  not  the  old  Israelitish  religious  consciousness, 
which  lives  in  Jesus  in  such  all  determining  fashion,  but  a 
new,  till  then  in  the  world  unheard  of,  and  perfect  con- 
sciousness, which  not  only  is  still  unsurpassed,  but  in  its 
inwardness  and  clearness,  never  can  be  surpassed." 1 

Outwardly,  this  uniqueness  consisted,  so  far  as  its  purely 
spiritual  quality  is  concerned,  in  the  perfect  surrender  of 
Himself  to  the  will  of  God,  and  to  the  service  of  men. 

In  the  history  of  a  person  thus  constituted  and  born 
into  the  world,  pre-natal  influence  must  have  an  important 
modifying  influence. 

Human  experience  has  established  very  firmly  the 
conviction  that  the  maternal  influence  ?s  dominant  in  the 
transmission  of  human  life.  Great  men,  almost  without 
exception,  have  great  mothers.  Even  children  of  great 
men  are  apt  to  fall  to  the  level  of  mediocrity  unless  there 
is  something  above  the  ordinary  in  their  mothers. 

Along  with  this,  we  have  learned  to  attribute  much  to 
pre-natal  influence.  Those  months,  in  which  the  life  of  the 
child  is  a  part  of  the  life  of  the  mother,  are  in  an  especially 
important  sense,  creative.  The  mental  and  emotional  life 
of  the  child  gains  its  direction  and  disposition  not  only 
from  the  past  of  the  race  through  heredity,  but  immedi- 
ately through  the  influence  of  the  mother's  predominant 
moods  and  emotions. 

1  Beyschlag,  Leben  Jesn,  p.  175. 


2t>4  GOSPEL   NARRATIVES 

Was  there  anything  in  Mary  to  account  for  the  unique- 
ness of  her  Son  ?  Looking  at  Mary  herself,  apart  from 
the  recorded  circumstance  of  Jesus'  birth,  I  fail  to  see  any 
such  preeminent  greatness  in  her  as  would  aid  us  in 
accounting  for  Jesus.  One  would  hesitate  to  do  injustice 
to  the  hereditary  and  natural  reverence  for  the  mother  of 
Jesus,  but  in  the  notices  we  have  of  her  life,  what  qualities 
does  she  exhibit  that  distinguish  her,  for  example,  from 
Elisabeth  ?  She  failed  totally  to  understand  her  Son  or 
to  accommodate  herself  to  His  interpretation  of  His  own 
career.  Religiously  she  belonged  to  the  school  of  John 
rather  than  that  of  Jesus.  She  was  certainly  inclined  to 
interfere  in  the  free  development  of  His  mission.  She  was 
undoubtedly  a  blameless  Jewish  maiden  of  deeply  religious 
spirit,  and  if  we  have  to  add  to  this,  that  she  was  narrow 
according  to  the  limitations  of  her  nation  and  of  her  age, 
who  shall  be  the  first  to  condemn  her  ? 

This  seems  to  me  a  fair  judgment  of  Mary  apart  from 
the  story  of  Jesus'  birth,  as  told  in  the  Gospel.  Accept 
this,  however,  and  her  whole  career  gains  an  altogether 
new  meaning  and  value.  In  one  moral  quality,  it  is  likely 
that  Mary  excelled  her  sisters,  but  it  is  due  to  the  story 
of  the  birth  of  Jesus  entirely  that  we  know  it.1  The  dis- 
tinctive historic  glory  of  womanhood  is  in  woman's  power 
of  self-abnegation.  In  this,  man  has  never  been  a  com- 
petitor on  equal  terms.  Woman's  contribution  to  social 
advancement  is  perfectly  evident.  The  industrial  arts,  the 
occupations  of  peace,  the  spirit  of  unselfishness,  the  unity 
and  stability  of  home,  the  principle  of  self-control, — these 
have  been  in  large  measure  the  gift  of  woman  to  the  race. 
The  greatest  triumph  of  evolution  was  the  mother,  and 
through  her  the  greatest  social  blessings  have  come. 

The  stress  laid  in  Scripture  upon  the  Hebrew  mothers 

1  See  statement  of  Dr.  Briggs,  quoted  p.  96. 


THE    UNIQUENESS   OF  CHRIST  26$ 

in  connection  with  the  promise,  from  the  words  spoken  to 
the  woman  in  the  garden,  to  the  words  of  the  angel  of 
the  Annunciation,  may  be  taken  as  an  intuitive  interpre- 
tation of  woman's  vital  connection  with  the  spiritual  evolu- 
tion of  the  race. ' 

If  the  Gospel  story  of  Jesus'  birth  is  true,  Mary  stands 
discovered  as  the  "  ideal  mother  "  delineated  in  Scripture,2 
for  no  other  ever  made  so  utter  a  sacrifice  for  the  race  as 
she.  In  all  the  range  of  imaginable  possibilities,  can  we 
conceive  of  any  service  demanding  such  utter  extinction 
of  self  as  that  to  which  Mary  was  called,  when  the  task 
was  laid  upon  her  of  bearing,  as  a  virgin,  the  Saviour  of 
men  ?  She  was  a  pure  maiden.  She  had  all  the  Hebrew 
passion  for  purity  and  a  pure  maiden's  jealousy  for  her 
good  name,  transmitted  to  her  through  generations  of 
women,  who  had  yearned  for  blameless  motherhood,  as 
bearing  within  it  the  possible  fruition  of  the  promise 
made  to  Abraham. 

Yet,  when  this  announcement  was  made  to  her,  she 
knew,  she  must  have  known,  she  could  not  have  helped 
knowing,  that  distrust  and  evil  fame,  open  sneer,  and 
biting  innuendo,  would  be  her  portion.  We  are  made 
witnesses  to  the  recoil  of  her  spirit  in  the  timid  question, 
"  How  shall  this  be  ?  "  And  then  to  her  submission  to 
the  divine  will,  though  dark  and  mysterious  the  behest. 
"  Behold  the  handmaid  of  the  Lord ;  be  it  unto  me  accord- 
ing to  Thy  word."  We  are  thus  brought  into  the  presence 
of  a  self-abnegation  immeasurable  by  any  human  mind. 
She  too,  as  well  as  her  Son,  had  to  endure  the  cross, 
despising  the  shame,  and,  if  it  was  for  the  joy  that  was 
set  before  her,  she  could  rise  to  the  appreciation  of  it  only 
through  the  utter  submission  of  her  will  to  God. 

1  See  Dawson,  Modern  Science  in  Bible  Lands,  p.  207. 

2  Cf.  Beecher,  Prophets  and  Promise,  p.  333. 


266  GOSPEL   NARRATIVES 

It  seems  to  me  that  we  have  here  a  true  interpretation 
of  the  antecedent  and  formative  influences  that  conditioned 
the  entrance  into  life  of  the  unique  Man. 

Viewed  apart  from  the  virgin  birth,  the  life  of  Mary- 
seems  to  me  a  sordid  and  meaningless  tragedy.  That 
which  really  constituted  Him  the  Son  of  God  and  the 
Saviour  of  men  took  place  outside  her  influence  entirely 
and  apparently  in  spite  of  it,  and  all  that  she  furnished  to 
Him,  as  equipment  for  His  Messiahship,  were  hampering 
limitations  of  thought  and  feeling,  which  He  was  obliged 
to  throw  off  in  order  to  enter  upon  His  true  career.  She 
was  not  really  the  mother  of  the  Christ. 

But,  on  the  other  hand,  viewed  in  connection  with  the 
virgin  birth,  Mary  is  lifted  into  a  sovereign  place  in  the 
life  of  Christ.  He  was  formed  as  Christ  and  Lord,  though 
in  humiliation  within  the  circle  of  her  life  and  the  impress 
of  her  consecration  was  upon  Him. 

The  religious  importance  and  value  of  her  unique  expe- 
rience ought  not  to  be  forgotten  in  an  estimate  of  the 
formative  influences  in  the  life  of  Jesus.  Without  yielding 
for  a  moment  to  any  ascetic  beliefs  concerning  marriage, 
we  may  safely  believe  that  there  was  something  peculiarly 
favorable  to  holiness  of  thought  and  life  in  the  months  of 
sacred  seclusion  during  which  the  child  was  borne  be- 
neath her  heart.  Certain  it  is,  that  if  this  story  be  true, 
we  have  an  aid  to  the  understanding  of  the  unique  spirit- 
ual quality  of  the  life  of  Jesus.  Mary  gave  to  Him  that 
which  was  the  ruling  impulse  and  constitutive  principle  of 
His  entire  life,  in  that  she  conceived  Him  in  utter  selfless- 
ness and  surrender  to  the  will  of  God.  God  was  to  her, 
in  literal  fact,  the  all  in  all  of  her  sacred  motherhood,  and 
from  Him  directly  she  received  her  Holy  Child. 


CHAPTER  IX 

THE    DOCTRINAL   CONSTRUCTION    OF   THE    HISTORIC    FACT 

The  total  outcome  of  our  study  thus  far  has  been  to 
establish  on  a  firm  basis  the  general  historical  trustworthi- 
ness of  the  Infancy  narratives,  which  carries  with  it  the 
credibility  of  the  most  important  assertion  made  therein 
concerning  the  miraculous  birth  of  Jesus. 

We  have  tried  to  follow,  carefully  and  candidly,  the 
theories  which  have  been  constructed,  to  account  for  the 
narrative  on  the  mythical  basis  and  have,  in  every  instance, 
become  involved  in  difficulties  greater  than  those  from 
which  we  have  escaped. 

We  are,  therefore,  compelled  by  logical  necessity  to 
except  the  traditional  interpretation  of  these  documents  as 
the  one  among  many  rival  interpretations  most  in  harmony 
with  the  facts. 

It  now  remains  to  attempt  the  doctrinal  construction  of 
the  historic  fact.  What  does  the  miraculous  birth  mean 
for  Christian  faith,  and  what  place  is  to  be  granted  to  the 
affirmation  concerning  Christ's  birth  among  our  religious 
convictions  ?  As  contributary  to  clearness  on  this  subject, 
let  us  first  of  all  consider  certain  a  priori  objections  to  the 
doctrine  of  the  virgin  birth. 

The  first  is  made  on  scientific  grounds.  It  is  objected 
that  the  virgin  birth  involves  a  breach  in  natural  ordi- 
nances, which  we  have  been  taught  to  consider  sacred  and 
divine. l     To  this,  I  answer  that  a  breach  in  those  ordi- 

1  Keim,  vol.  i,  p.  53. 

267 


268  GOSPEL   NARRATIVES 

nances  has  already  been  made  in  the  bringing  into  the 
world  of  the  unique  Man.  Jesus  Himself  undeniably  con- 
stitutes an  exception.  He  was  beyond  question  a  moral 
miracle.1  If  He  was  sinless,  certainly  the  continuity  of  ra- 
cial development  was  violently  broken.  If  one  seeks  es- 
cape from  this  conclusion,  which  is  logically  inevitable  from 
the  premises,  by  denying  sinlessness  in  any  complete  sense 
to  Jesus,  not  only  is  the  denial  itself  feeble  and  half-hearted, 
but  even  if  allowed  to  stand,  the  relief  which  it  affords  is 
only  partial ;  for  His  uniqueness  in  self-consciousness,  in 
character,  in  life,  and  in  ability  to  mediate  the  life  of  God, 
still  constitutes  such  an  exception  to  ordinary  human 
character,  as  to  leave  the  continuity  of  racial  unfolding  in 
a  seriously  damaged  condition. 

Besides,  we  are  entirely  justified,  on  the  basis  of  ascer- 
tained fact,  to  claim  exception  for  the  bodily  life  of  Jesus. 
A  moral  miracle  involves  a  physical  miracle.  All  mental 
processes  involve  molecular  changes.  The  reformation  of 
a  drunkard  involves  a  readjustment  of  his  entire  physical 
constitution.  The  birth  into  the  world  of  a  being  like 
Jesus,  of  such  transcendent  moral  and  spiritual  qualities  as 
to  set  Him  apart  from  the  race  to  which  He  belongs, 
involves  a  special  divine  activity  in  the  formation  of  the 
humanity,  which  He  wears.  The  intimate  blending  of 
body  and  soul,  the  necessary  and  constant  interaction  of 
the  two  in  one  indivisible,  personal  life  justifies  no  other 
conclusion. 

Moreover,  if  the  record  of  Jesus'  life  is  not  an  absolute 
tissue  of  fables,  His  acts  of  power  constitute  an  invasion  of 
these  sacred  ordinances,  if  such  they  are,  very  difficult 
indeed  to  repair.  There  is  need  here  for  careful  discrimina- 
tion or  we  shall  be  going  astray  in  the  fog.  Is  it  seriously 
urged  that  there  is  any  argument  on  scientific  grounds 
1See  Bruce,  M.  in  Gospels,  pp.  352. 


DOCTRINAL    CONSTRUCTION  OF  HISTORIC  FACT  269 

against  the  miraculous  birth  which  is  not  of  equal  force 
against  any  miracle  ?  Is  there  any  greater  scientific  objec- 
tion to  the  statement  that  Jesus  entered  the  world  in  an 
exceptional  manner,  than  to  the  statement  that  He  left  the 
world  in  an  exceptional  manner  ?  As  a  matter  of  fact,  there 
is  none  except  in  just  this  one  particular,  that  the  fact  of 
the  miraculous  birth  is  capable  of  less  extended  verification 
than  other  miracles.  I  cannot  help  the  feeling  that  op- 
ponents of  the  supernatural  have  looked  upon  the  virgin 
birth  as  offering  opportunity  for  an  easy  victory,  since  in 
the  very  nature  of  the  case  the  number  of  witnesses  is 
small.  The  attack  upon  the  reality  of  the  Resurrection 
has  failed  because  of  the  fullness  of  the  testimony.1  There 
are  also,  as  we  have  seen,  insuperable  difficulties  involved 
in  the  mythical  interpretation  of  the  Infancy  narrative. 

The  rise,  publication,  and  acceptance  of  the  story  of  the 
miraculous  birth  is  an  unsolvable  enigma,  except  upon 
the  supposition  of  a  basis  in  actual  fact.  Against  this 
testimony,  no  cogent  argument  can  be  lodged  on  scientific 
grounds.  The  real  basis  of  objection  is  a  naturalistic  bias, 
which  applies  equally  to  all  manifestations  of  the  super- 
natural.2 3 

This  bias  is  philosophic,  not  scientific.     Much  of  the 

1  On  the  subject  of  the  Resurrection,  cf.:  Christlieb,  Modern  Doubt  and 
Christian  Belief  {Er\g.  trans.),  pp.  44S-467. 

2  "From  the  scientific  point  of  view  the  evidence  required  to  establish  any 
•  very  wonderful  event '  is  essentially  the  same  as  that  required  for  any  other 
historical  event,  only  it  must  be  scrutinized  with  special  care,  proportionate 
to  its  antecedent  improbability  judged  from  that  point  of  view. 

"From  the  theological  point  of  view  our  judgment  on  the  '  miraculous  ' 
character  of  the  event,  where  the  fact  of  its  occurrence  is  established,  will 
depend  on  the  light  which  it  throws  on  the  character  and  purpose  of  God." 
{Murray  Cam.  Fssays,  p.  323.)  No  one  can  object  to  these  principles, 
but  the  hard  and  fast  a  priori  determination  that  miracles  are  impossible 
is  a  very  different  thing. 

5  See  note  A,  Appendix. 


270  GOSPEL   NARRATIVES 

current  objection  to  miracles  on  alleged  scientific  grounds 
is  radically  unscientific,  because  it  is  maintained  by  a 
refusal  under  the  influence  of  a  philosophic  notion  of  the 
world  to  admit  evidence,  and  it  logically  involves  blank 
atheism. 

To  the  thorough-going  theist,  the  possibility  of  miracles 
is  not  an  open  question.  The  possibility  of  miracles  is 
involved  in  the  theistic  postulate.  If  there  is  a  personal 
supramundane  God,  then  it  is,  of  course,  possible  that 
such  a  being  at  any  time  for  reasons  sufficient  to  His  wis- 
dom, may  act  directly  upon  the  world  and  its  ordinances. 
Whether  he  has  done  so  in  any  given  instance  is  purely  a 
matter  of  evidence.  And  the  man  who  is  wise  will  not 
allow  any  hard  and  fast  a  priori  theory  of  the  world  to 
blind  him  to  the  force  of  positive  evidence  under  the  mis- 
taken notion  that  such  an  attitude  is  scientific. 

There  is  no  slavery  comparable  with  mental  bondage 
to  a  false  philosophic  principle.  It  is  positively  pitiful  to 
see  the  struggle  of  men,1  who  are  bound  by  the  natural- 
istic postulate  that  miracle  is  impossible,  to  interpret  the 
character  and  life  of  Christ.  I  cannot  resist  the  conclusion 
that  Keim's  theory  of  a  special  divine  agency  in  the  natural 
birth  of  Jesus  like  his  "heavenly-telegram"  theory  of  the 
Resurrection  is  of  the  nature  of  an  impotent  compromise 
between  his  philosophic  theory  and  the  self-evident  truth- 
fulness of  the  narrative.2 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  physical  science  as  such  has  nothing 
to  say  for  or  against  the  miraculous  birth  of  Jesus.3  If  it 
has  anything  to  say  at  all,  it  is  that  an  exceptional  organ- 

1  See  Brace,  H.  of  Christ,  p.  216;  Ibid,  Miraculous  Element  in  Gos- 
pels, p.  98;  see  Keim,  vol.  ii,  p.  127. 

2  Cf.  Brace,  Apologetics,  pp.  392-3. 

3  Nor  indeed  against  miracles  as  such.  Cf.  discussion  by  Fairbairn,  Ph. 
Ch.  Religion,  pp.  23,  ff. 


DOCTRINAL    CONSTRUCTION  OF  HISTORIC  FACT  27 1 

ism  implies  an  exceptional  life  history.  The  uniformity 
of  nature  has  no  bearing  upon  the  question,  for  the  uni- 
formity of  nature  rightly  interpreted  means  simply  that  the 
same  causes  always  produce  the  same  results.  It  has 
nothing  to  say  about  the  hypothesis  of  a  new  cause  in  any 
given  instance,  except  to  investigate  it.1 

Nature  herself  is  plastic,  and  introduces  new  methods 
of  operation.  I  once  heard  an  interesting  utterance  of  the 
late  John  Fiske  in  reply  to  the  old  question  :  "  Which  is 
first,  the  egg  or  the  hen  ?  "      Fiske  replied  :  "  Neither — at 

1  The  scientific  aspects  of  the  virgin  birth  of  Christ  have  received  con- 
siderable attention  at  the  hands  of  thoughtful  men.  Two  views  are  espe- 
cially worthy  of  note.  Dean  Fremantle  in  an  address  before  the  Church- 
men's Union  in  October,  1901,  made  the  following  interesting  remark  upon 
the  scientific  question  involved:  "In  Darwin's  book  on  the  changes  of 
Plants  and  Animals  under  Domestication,  he  points  out  that  Partheno- 
genesis is  found  much  higher  than  is  generally  known  in  the  organized 
creation,  and  he  asks  why  the  operation  of  the  male  is  required,  the  germ 
or  ovum  of  the  female  being  complete  in  itself.  He  answers  that  he  can 
give  no  reason  except,  probably,  that  force  and  energy  are  thus  added.  If, 
then,  the  accounts  in  the  Gospels — that  is  Matt,  i  and  Luke  i — are  true 
literally,  the  meaning  of  my  suggestion  would  be  that  the  yearnings  of  a  young 
Hebrew  woman,  longing  with  intense  and  holy  desire  to  be  the  mother  of 
the  Messiah  (which  longings  were  the  direct  action  of  the  Holy  Spirit) 
excited  and  quickened  the  germ  within  her,  and  produced  in  this  case  what 
is  usually  produced  by  the  action  of  the  male.  This  seems  to  me  the  only 
meaning  that  can  be  got  out  of  the  words  of  St.  Luke,  unless  you  are  to 
'  invoke  the  word  miracle.'  "      (See  article  in  Con.  R.,  vol.  84,  p.  236.) 

This  is  merely  an  attempt  to  give  an  explanation  in  terms  of  biology  of  the 
simple  statement  of  the  Gospel  that  Jesus  was  conceived  by  the  power  of  the 
Holy  Ghost.  That  the  Gospel  narrative  itself  attempts  no  such  explanations 
but  rests  upon  the  fact  itself  is  one  of  the  elements  both  of  its  grandeur  and 
power.  Peyton  in  his  book,  The  Three  Greatest  Forces  in  the  World,  Parti, 
The  Incarnation  (London,  A.  &  C.  Black,  1905,  pp.  130,  f,)  makes  an  elabo- 
rate exposition  of  the  subject,  arguing  that  the  virgin  birth  is  not  a  miracle  in 
the  ordinary  sense,  but  simply  "  the  exceptional  operation  of  a  natural  law." 
"  She  (nature)  takes  pleasure  in  variation.  The  virgin  birth  of  Christ  is  ex- 
ceptional, and  we  shall  presently  see  how  this  large  exception  finds  admis- 
sion among  other  large  exceptions  in  the  scheme  of  nature,  creating  epochs 
(p.  132)." 


2/2  GOSPEL   NARRATIVES 

the  beginning  of  the  series  is  a  cell  which  has  the  power 
to  fold  in  upon  itself  and  divide  into  two  parts,  each  of 
which  becomes  a  complete  individual."  In  a  universe, 
whose  ordinances  are  so  pliable  as  to  make  room  for 
reproduction  by  various  processes  from  simple  cell 
division  to  mammiferous  birth,  there  is  room  for  an 
exception,  such  as  the  birth  of  Jesus,  in  the  interest  of  a 
higher  life  for  man.1  If  to  the  man  of  scientific  temper, 
the  miraculous  birth  as  a  means  of  accomplishing  the 
Incarnation  and  beginning  a  new  era  in  human  history- 
seems  incredible,  let  him  read  the  following  extract  which 
exhibits  the  series  of  ascents  by  which  the  strictest  science 
interprets  the  movement  of  nature  from  lower  to  higher 
forms  and  by  which  is  laid  the  foundation  of  a  "  religion 
of  humanity." 2 

"  The  '  religion  of  humanity '  runs  back  the  genealogy 
of  man,  with  all  his  powers,  with  all  his  equipments,  to  the 
dust  of  the  earth.  I  hold  in  my  hand  a  genealogy  which  I 
wish  you  to  compare  with  the  genealogy  of  Luke.  It  is  not 
a  satire  ;  it  is  not  an  irony.  I  have  taken  it  from  the  pages 
of  Ernest  Haeckel.  It  is  true,  I  have  condensed  it  from 
perhaps  a  dozen  pages,  but  in  that  condensation  I  have 
followed  precisely  the  line  traced  by  the  atheistic  'philos- 
opher. What  is  omitted  is  simply  the  detailed  description 
of  the  several  species  in  the  genealogy.  Let  me  read  it : 
'  Monera  begat  Amoebae,  Amoebae  begat  Synamoebae, 
Synamoebae  begat  Ciliated  Larva,  Ciliated  Larva  begat 
Primeval  Stomach  Animals,  Primeval  Stomach  Animals 
begat  Gliding  Worms,  Gliding  Worms  begat  Soft  Worms, 
Soft   Worms  begat   Sack  Worms,   Sack  Worms   begat 

1  Cf.  letter  from  Prof.  Huxley  quoted  by  Gore,  Incarnation  of  the  Son  of 
God,  p.  266  and  reference,  p.  58. 

2  Extract  from  an  article  by  Dr.  L.  Abbott,  quoted  by  van  Dyke,  Gospel 
for  an  Age  of  Doubt,  p.  410. 


DOCTRINAL    CONSTRUCTION  OF  HISTORIC  FACT  273 

Skull-less  Animals,  Skull-less  Animals  begat  Single- 
nostriled  Animals,  Single-nostriled  Animals  begat  Prime- 
val Fish,  Primeval  Fish  begat  Mud  Fish,  Mud  Fish  begat 
Gilled  Amphibians,  Gilled  Amphibians  begat  Tailed  Am- 
phibians, Tailed  Amphibians  begat  Primeval  Amniota, 
Primeval  Amniota  begat  Primary  Mammals,  Primary 
Mammals  begat  Pouched  Animals,  Pouched  Animals 
begat  Semi-apes,  Semi-apes  begat  Tailed  Apes,  Tailed 
Apes  begat  Man-like  Apes,  Man-like  Apes  begat  Ape- 
like Men,  Ape-like  Men  begat  Men.'  " 

Another  objection  urged  against  the  doctrine  is  that  it 
separates  Christ  from  us  by  postulating  a  difference  in  the 
mode  of  His  conception  and  birth.  I  answer  :  Not  unless 
it  is  granted  that  the  mode  of  His  conception  must  neces- 
sarily exercise  a  controlling  influence  in  the  formation  of 
His  personality.  The  contention  of  those  who  oppose  the 
virgin  birth,  is  that  it  is  not  necessary  in  order  to  explain 
His  exceptional  character.  That  He  is  exceptional,  is 
granted ;  the  relationship  of  His  birth  to  the  distinctive  qual- 
ity of  His  personality  is  in  dispute.  It  is  affirmed  that  the 
power  of  God  acting  upon  the  personality  of  the  naturally 
begotten  Jesus  would  sufficiently  account  for  Him.  If  this 
contention  is  correct,  then  the  mode  of  His  birth,  since  it 
has  no  determining  influence  upon  His  personality,  is  a 
negligible  factor  in  the  interpretation  of  that  personality,  and 
the  mode  of  His  birth  could  not  have  enough  influence  to 
separate  Him  from  us.  Those  who  object  to  the  virgin 
birth  on  the  ground  that  it  is  not  necessary  to  account 
for  His  divinity,  ought  not  to  object  to  it  on  the  ground 
that  it  destroys  His  humanity.  There  appears  to  be,  in 
the  background  of  this  argument,  a  notion  that  in  order 
to  a  complete  humanity  of  Jesus,  we  must  hold  that  He 
was  naturally  derived  from  the  race  like  the  rest  of  us, 
and  that  by  divine  election,  and  His  own  moral  choice, 

18 


274  GOSPEL   NARRATIVES 

He  became  the  Messiah.  It  is  strange  that  men,  who 
really  hold  this  view  do  not  see  that  they  have  surren- 
dered the  vital  principle  of  the  Incarnation.  It  is  a  fun- 
damentally unscriptural  Christology  into  which  timid 
thought  has  inadvertently  fallen.  And  it  offers  no  gen- 
uine relief  to  the  mind  because  it  postulates  not  only  an 
exceptional  personality,  but  also  an  exceptional  experience. 

As  Soltau  says,  the  miracle  is  still  there.  By  boldness 
in  our  affirmations,  however,  we  shall  save  both  His  divin- 
ity and  His  humanity.  We  boldly  affirm  that  Jesus  was 
exceptional  throughout,  in  the  constitution  of  His  being, 
in  the  mode  of  His  entrance  into  the  world,  in  the  quality 
and  compass  of  the  powers  within  Him,  in  His  moral  con- 
sciousness, in  His  character,  in  His  mode  of  life,  in  His 
departure  from  the  world — and  yet  with  equal  tenacity,  we 
hold  that  by  voluntary  choice  He  lived  a  genuinely 
human  life,  in  dependence  upon  the  Father,  in  struggle 
with  temptation,  in  weakness,  sorrow,  and  death. 

The  meaning  and  glory  of  the  Incarnation  lie  in  this, 
that  while  Jesus  was  exceptional,  separated  from  us  by 
the  breadth  of  worlds  in  His  spiritual  character  and 
moral  life,  He  was  yet,  by  the  power  of  His  mighty  sym- 
pathy, brought  close  to  us,  even  drawn  down  into  our 
life,  so  that  we  touch  Him  as  a  brother  and  friend.  In 
view  of  all  that  Jesus  was  represented  to  be,  the  ob- 
jection to  His  miraculous  birth,  which  is  but  one  item 
in  the  total  representation  of  Him,  on  the  ground  that  it 
constitutes  Him  an  exception  and  removes  Him  from  us, 
cannot  be  allowed  to  stand. 

The  last  objection,  which  I  shall  consider,  is  that  the 
virgin  birth  degrades  our  human  life  by  assuming  that 
the  Messiah  could  not  have  been  brought  into  the  world 
except  by  a  suspension  of  the  natural  processes  by  which 
life  is  continued  upon  the  earth. 


DOCTRINAL    CONSTRUCTION  OF  HISTORIC  FACT  2J$ 

I  do  not  pretend  to  know  what  God  could  or  could 
not  do — I  have  not  presumed  to  say  that  God  could  not 
have  brought  the  Messiah  into  the  world  by  other  methods 
than  the  one  which  we  think  He  chose.  The  reader, 
who  has  followed  the  argument  thus  far,  has  noticed  that 
every  a  priori  consideration,  which  has  been  urged  in 
favor  of  the  received  doctrine,  has  been  introduced  by  the 
saving  process,  "  It  seems,  or  it  looks  as  if."  There  is  no 
place  in  such  a  discussion  for  dogmatic  assertions  as  to 
what  God  may  or  may  not  do.  But  that  the  doctrine  of 
the  virgin  birth  has  any  tendency  to  degrade  our  human 
life,  or  to  cast  discredit  upon  its  sacred  mysteries,  I  em- 
phatically deny. 

It  is  true  that  in  the  second  century  and  onward,  the 
virgin  birth  was  used  to  put  a  premium  upon  virginity, 
and  to  lend  support  to  the  ascetic  tendency  in  general. 
It  must  be  remembered,  however,  that  the  Gospel1  was 
not  formed  in  that  atmosphere,  and  that  it  did  not  create 
the  ascetic  tendency,  which  was  a  natural  reaction  from 
the  corruptions  of  heathenism,  while  it  offered  the  most 
effective  resistance  to  the  Gnostic  ideas  of  the  corruption 
of  matter,  and  the  most  effective  support  to  the  doctrine 
of  a  real  incarnation.  Among  the  historic  influences  of 
the  Infancy  narrative,  must  be  counted  also  an  intensified 
conception  of  the  beauty  of  child-life,  and  the  sacredness 
of  motherhood. 

What  then,  does  the  doctrine  of  the  miraculous  birth 
really  imply  as  to  the  sacredness  of  human  life  and  parent- 
hood ?  In  the  evoking  of  a  new  life  upon  the  earth,  it  is 
unquestionably  true  that  human  beings  are  permitted  to 
exercise  a  deputed  divine  function.  God  is  Himself,  in  the 
last  analysis,  the  Creator  of  all  living  things.  And  yet,  it  is 
a  mediated  connection,  which  He  has  with  the  origination 

1  Matthew  i,  25. 


276  GOSPEL  NARRATIVES 

of  human  life  since  the  first  creation.  This  function,  the 
highest  and  holiest  which  a  created  being  is  capable  of 
exercising,  shares  the  imperfection  and  tendency  to  deteri- 
oration which  belongs  to  all  things  human.  In  fact,  the 
all  pervading  virus  of  sin  has  infected  this  holy  mystery 
of  our  being  more  deeply,  and  corrupted  it  more  shame- 
fully, than  any  other. 

A  train  of  unimaginable  ills  has  followed  upon  its  abuse. 
Sometimes  the  divine  element  is  reduced  almost  to  noth- 
ing. It  would  be  an  insult  to  God  to  call  Him  the  crea- 
tor, in  any  direct  sense  of  multitudes  of  mis-begotten  and 
sin-cursed  unfortunates,  who  are  the  embodiment  not  of 
the  divine  creative  power,  but  of  human  folly  and  crime. 
Still,  there  is  something  of  the  work  of  God  in  the  low- 
est. Imperfect  as  human  relationships  are  at  their  best, 
God  uses  them  as  the  instruments  of  His  own  power. 
There  is  in  every  normally  constituted  human  being  an 
individuality,  an  originality,  which  is  the  stamp  of  the 
divine  creative  activity,  the  image  of  God. 

The  unfolding  revelation  of  the  Bible  exhibits  God's 
purpose  to  sanctify  and  redeem  the  human  family  by  mak- 
ing it  the  means  by  which  the  great  promise  should  be 
fulfilled.  The  culmination  of  that  process  comes  in  the 
birth  of  the  Son  of  man  of  a  human  mother,  but  by  the  im- 
mediate exercise  of  the  divine  creative  power,  God's  own 
sublime  function  reassumed  in  order  to  symbolize  a  new 
beginning  in  human  life,  a  new  era  in  human  history.  Every 
lower  association  was  thereby  removed,  the  veil  of  mystery 
was  for  a  time  drawn  back  and  God  was  revealed,  not  only 
as  the  Father  of  Jesus,  but  as  the  creator  of  the  race  into 
which  Jesus  was  born.  It  is  the  clearest  and  most  unmis- 
takable revelation  of  the  inherent  sanctity  of  our  human 
life,  and  of  the  relationship  upon  which  its  perpetuation 
depends.    They  were  possessed  of  far  keener  insight,  who 


DOCTRINAL    CONSTRUCTION  OF  HISTORIC  FACT  277 

recognized  that  this  doctrine  was  fatal  to  their  dogma  of 
the  inherent  and  unconquerable  vileness  of  matter,  than 
they  who  find  in  it  a  reflection  upon  the  sacredness  of 
human  life,  inasmuch  as  for  the  Messiah  to  be  born  by 
the  immediate  power  of  God  redeems  unto  sacred  and 
divine  meanings,  birth  and  parenthood,  and  the  physical 
life  upon  which  these  depend.  He  is  not  likely  to  degrade 
this  power,  who  understands  and  believes  that  it  was 
made  the  instrument,  by  the  immediate  power  of  the 
Almighty,  for  the  renewal  of  human  life  and  the  redemp- 
tion of  the  world. 

Having  met  the  chief  objections  which  are  to  be  urged 
on  grounds  of  reason  to  the  doctrine,  it  now  remains  for 
us  to  assign  a  place  and  value  to  it  among  our  other 
beliefs.  The  most  serious  logical  flaw  in  the  usual  argu- 
ments against  the  virgin  birth  is  the  assumption  that  it 
must  be  made  the  cornerstone  of  faith,  or  rejected  as  a 
myth. 

Soltau  says '  that  he  would  "  gladly  refrain  from  dis- 
turbing the  childlike  faith  of  those  who  have  given  them- 
selves up  in  heartfelt  Christmas  joy  to  the  spell  of  these 
unique  legends — he  would  gladly  refrain  from  this,  if  only 
the  demand  were  not  made  at  the  same  time,  in  all  its 
coarseness,  that  the  Christian,  who,  above  all  others, 
wishes  to  claim  this  name,  shall  not  only  be  obliged  to 
find  in  this  story  the  foundation  on  which  to  build  up  his 
own  character,  but  also  to  make  it  the  basis  of  the  whole 
of  his  Christian  faith." 

Soltau  goes  farther  than  this  and  rules  out  of  the  evan- 
gelical ranks  those  who  still  hold  to  the  Infancy  narrative. 
"  An  Evangelical  Christian,  that  is  to  say,  a  Christian 
holding  fast  in  his  religious  convictions  to  the  gospel  of 

1  Pp.  5,  6.     See  also  Lobstein. 


278  GOSPEL   NARRATIVES 

the  apostles,  and  of  the  apostolic  school,  is  no  longer 
able  to  believe  in  the  supernatural  origin  of  Jesus." 

Moreover,  so  sure  is  he  that  it  must  be  abandoned  in 
order  to  maintain  evangelical  position  that  he  hurls  anath- 
ema against  all  who  would  still  retain  the  second  article 
as  an  ecclesiastical  obligation.  "  Whoever  makes  the 
further  demand  that  an  evangelical  Christian  shall  believe 
in  the  words,  '  Conceived  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  born  of  the 
virgin  Mary,'  wittingly  constitutes  himself  sharer  in  a  sin 
against  the  Holy  Spirit  of  the  true  Gospel  as  transmitted 
to  us  by  the  apostles  and  their  school  in  the  Apostolic 
Age." 

Verily,  these  are  bitter  words  !  It  is  very  difficult  for 
an  American  Christian  to  understand  the  spirit  of  Soltau's 
work.  We  do  not  thus  anathematize  and  unchurch  each 
other.  We  should  not  deny  the  title, "  Evangelical  Chris- 
tian," to  any  man  of  whatever  creed  who  claims  the  name 
and  manifests  the  spirit  of  Christ,  and  we  should  naturally 
expect  a  like  charity  from  him.  We  should  reserve  the 
right,  which  would  be  freely  granted  to  him  in  turn,  to 
judge  whether  or  not  his  theology  is  in  accord  with  the 
apostolic  tradition  according  to  our  understanding  of  that 
tradition.  Whether  he  could  agree  with  us  in  saying  the 
words  of  the  creed  would  be  for  him,  not  for  us,  to  deter- 
mine, and  we  should  allow  him  full  liberty  of  assent  and 
dissent  according  to  his  own  conscience. 

But  I  wish  to  confute  the  presumption  that  the  mirac- 
ulous birth  must  be  either  the  foundation  for  the  whole 
of  our  faith  or  a  myth.  Surely  it  may  be  neither  the  one 
nor  the  other.  Because  a  stone  is  not  the  cornerstone,  is 
no  reason  that  it  is  not  thereby  resolved  into  a  moonbeam 
or  a  cloudbank.  It  may  be  solid  and  have  an  appropriate 
place  in  the  structure  without  being  the  cornerstone.  The 
cornerstone  of  our  faith  is  the  divine-human    Christ  in 


DOCTRINAL    CONSTRUCTION  OF  HISTORIC  FACT  2jg 

the  totality  of  His  self- revelation.  We  are  brought  to 
believe  in  the  deity  of  Christ  by  the  convergence  upon  it 
of  many  radiating  lines  of  evidence,  by  the  fitting  together 
of  many  items  of  proof.  The  divineness  of  our  Lord  is 
too  large  a  conception  to  rest  upon  any  one  item  of  evi- 
dence or  proof.  It  is  far  too  large  to  rest  upon  the  mirac- 
ulous birth.  But  this  does  not  say  that  the  miraculous 
birth  is  a  myth.  The  deity  of  Christ  is  too  large  a  con- 
ception to  rest  entirely  upon  the  miracles,  or  the  teachings, 
or  the  Resurrection  ;  these  are  not,  therefore,  myths.  The 
apostles,  especially  Paul,  seem  to  talk  sometimes  as  if  the 
Resurrection  alone  were  a  proof  of  the  deity  of  Christ,  but 
we  know  well  enough  that  they  silently  appeal  to  all  that 
goes  before  the  Resurrection.  His  resurrection  would 
mean  little  without  His  life  and  character.  The  corner- 
stone of  faith  is  Christ  Himself.  The  miraculous  birth, 
the  life,  the  miracles,  the  teaching,  the  Resurrection,  are  all 
elements  of  His  full  manifestation,  items  in  the  proof  of 
His  deity.  Each  one  of  these  items  has  a  value  in  pro- 
portion to  what  it  contributes  to  our  understanding  of 
Jesus. l 

1  The  doctrinal  significance  of  the  miraculous  birth  has  been  persistently 
underestimated  by  its  opponents.  Excessive  emphasis  upon  it  as  the  sole 
or  chief  explanation  of  Christ's  person,  has  worked  out  its  usual  results  in 
a  reaction  just  as  excessive  in  which  its  meaning  and  value  are  altogether 
lost  sight  of.  A  careful  study  of  the  considerations  urged  by  Dr.  J.  A.  Dorner 
in  his  great  work  on  the  History  of  the  Doctrine  of  the  Person  of  Christ 
would  serve  to  modify  and  to  correct  that  view  in  many  minds.  In  the 
following  note,  I  have  taken  up  the  chief  points  in  Dorner's  discussion  ;  the 
whole  section,  however,  should  be  carefully  read. 

Lobstein  affirms  that  the  Infancy  narratives  involve  the  idea  of  a  "  phys- 
ical filiation  ;"  that  is,  that  the  Sonship  of  Jesus  is  made  to  depend  upon  the 
mode  of  His  conception.  This  notion  appears  to  have  been  adopted  from 
Dr.  Dorner  {His.  Doc.  Person  of  Christ,  vol.  i,  Eng.  Trans,  pp.  52  seq.),  but 
without  taking  into  consideration  all  that  Dorner  says.  We  have  already 
noticed  in  Chapter  V,  the  objections  to  this  interpretation  of  Luke.  The  Son- 
ship  of  the  Child  is  there  made  to  depend  more  upon  a  unique  relationship 


28o  GOSPEL   NARRATIVES 

The  arguments  from  the  comparative  silence  of  Paul 
and  John  have  this  force  and  this  force  only.  They  show- 
that  the  virgin  birth  is  not  the  cornerstone  of  our  faith  in 

to  God  and  the  Holiness  resultant  therefrom  than  upon  the  physical  agency 
of  God  in  His  conception.  Nothing  is  said  in  that  verse  about  a  miracu- 
lous birth.  The  power  of  God  is  to  overshadow  Mary  in  her  conception,  but 
nothing  is  stated  as  to  the  mode  of  that  conception. 

But  there  is  another  stronger  consideration  to  be  urged  against  Lobstein's 
"physical  filiation"  theory,  and  any  interpretations  of  the  documents  which 
make  Jesus'  Sonship  depend  upon  the  mode  of  His  conception.  Dorner 
says  :  "There  are  principally  three  meanings  which  the  phrase  itbg  deov  has 
in  these  Gospels.  The  first  we  may  call  the  physical  (Matt,  i,  23  ;  Luke  i, 
35),  because  He  has  this  name  by  nature,  and  on  account  of  the  mode  of 
His  birth.  Of  John  it  is  said,  '  He  shall  be  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  even 
from  his  mother' s  womb,'  (Luke  i,  15),  where  the  existence  of  the  person 
of  John  precedes  the  filling  with  the  Holy  Ghost.  Of  Jesus  it  is  said,  because 
He  comes  into  being  through  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost  (Luke  i,  35), 
because  He  is  conceived  by  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost  (Matt,  i,  20),  and 
so  is  from  a  Divine  Essence,  He  has  the  name  Son  of  God  (Luke  i,  35,  32); 
there  is  in  Him  God  with  us  (Matt,  i,  23);  God  has  in  Him  redeemed  His 
people  (Lukeii,  11),  yea,  all  mankind  (Luke  ii,  14,  31);  and  He  has  become 
the  Son  of  mankind,  who  brings  in  a  new  morning  (Luke  i,  78);  inasmuch 
as  in  Him  God  is  historically  present.  And  it  is  not  one  of  the  natures  that 
has  this  name,  but  the  entire  Person.     (Italics  mine. )  " 

Upon  this  last  sentence,  the  whole  notion  that  we  are  taught  a  "physical 
filiation,"  breaks  down.  It  will  not,  I  suppose,  be  contended  that  the  entire 
person  of  Christ  is  made  to  depend  upon  the  physical  process  involved  in 
His  conception,  however  exceptional  these  may  have  been.  This  would  be 
traducianism  gone  mad.  It  is  true  that  because  He  comes  into  being 
through  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  because  He  is  conceived  by  the  pow'er 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  so  is  from  a  divine  Essence,  He  has  the  name, 
"  Son  of  God  ;  "  but  this  process  involves  more  than  a  "physical  filiation." 
It  would  be  incorrect  and  illogical  to  make  the  entire  personality,  physical 
and  spiritual,  of  any  ordinary  human  individual  to  depend  wholly  upon  the 
physical  process  involved  in  His  birth.  Since  there  is  an  element  in  the  in- 
dividual for  which  physiology  cannot  account,  so  also  must  there  be  in  the 
process  by  which  He  comes  to  be  something  which  physiology  cannot  ex- 
plain. Much  more  is  it  incorrect  to  make  the  entire  person  of  the  unique 
Man  entirely  dependent  upon  any  process  which  can  rightly  be  called  a 
"physical  filiation."  In  other  words,  a  part  of  the  process  has  been  al- 
lowed to  give  its  name  to  the  whole.     The  miracle  in  the  physical  realm 


DOCTRINAL    CONSTRUCTION  OF  HISTORIC  FACT  28 1 

Christ's  divinity  or  sinlessness.  To  Paul,  the  Resurrection 
seemed  the  central  fact  in  the  revelation  of  Christ,  to  Mark 
the  miracles,  and  to  John  the  preexistence  and  higher 

is  the  symbol  of  a  process  with  the  realm  of  the  spiritual.  The  entire 
being  of  Jesus  was  the  special  creation  of  God,  but  that  process  was  some- 
thing more  than  physical.  There  is,  however,  another  serious  objection  to 
this  physical  filiation  theory  of  the  miraculous  birth.  If  conceivably,  the 
message  of  the  angel  to  Mary  might  be  interpreted  thus,  the  teaching  of 
the  Infancy  section  as  a  whole  entirely  transcends  this  point  of  view.  As 
Dorner  says  :  "  But  what  this  is  by  nature  and  in  itself,  that  must  it  become 
through  a  truly  human  development.  So  far  as  He  verifies  and  morally  real- 
izes this  His  natural  Divine  Sonship,  we  have,  thereby,  the  concept  of  the 
ethical  Sonship  of  God  (Luke  ii,  52,  49,  etc.)."  In  other  words,  the  ethical 
Sonship  of  Christ  just  as  much  as  His  natural  Sonship  has  a  place  in  the 
Infancy  section.  Whatever  may  or  may  not  be  involved  in  the  miraculous 
birth,  it  is  but  one  element  of  the  interpretation  of  Christ  in  the  section. 
These  two  elements  of  the  interpretation  must  be  credited  to  the  Infancy 
narrative,  and  it  becomes  at  once  apparent  that  this  consideration  alone  does 
much  to  bring  the  Christology  of  the  section  into  harmony  with  the  rest  of 
the  New  Testament.  I  take  it  that  Dorner  does  not  mean  by  "physical 
Sonship"  what  Lobstein  means  by  "physical  filiation,"  because  the  former 
uses  the  phrase  "physical  Sonship  "  as  the  equivalent  of  "  natural  Sonship," 
and  he  does  not  make  his  Sonship  depend  altogether  upon  the  mode  of  his 
conception.  I  have  found  nowhere  else  so  clear  an  understanding  and  in- 
terpretation of  the  relationship  between  the  Christology  of  the  Infancy  nar- 
rative and  the  rest  of  the  New  Testament.  Connected  immediately  with 
the  sentence  quoted  above  on  the  ethical  Sonship  he  says  :  "  That  He  also, 
in  this  sense,  perfectly  represented  the  Sonship  of  God,  was,  for  the  time 
preceding  His  public  manifestation,  attested  by  the  utterance  at  His  bap- 
tism (Matt,  iii,  17).  But  as,  without  the  physical  (natural)  Sonship  as  a 
presupposition,  the  ethical  would  be  impossible,  whereby  He  is  the  Holy 
One  of  God,  the  Sinless  man,  come  to  bring,  above  all  personally  in  Him- 
self, the  good,  the  divine  law,  into  actual  manifestation  (Matt,  v,  17),  but 
even  on  that  account,  in  a  perfectly  human  way,  in  a  progressive  manifes- 
tation, advancing  through  conflict  (Matt,  xix,  16,  17  ;  Mark  x,  18  ;  Luke  iv, 
13;  xii,  49,  50);  so,  without  both,  the  physical  and  the  ethical,  the  third, 
the  official,  would  be  impossible,  which  conversely  is  as  naturally  and  nec- 
essarily the  end  of  both  these,  as  the  ethical  is  of  the  physical.  This  third 
meaning  of  the  phrase  is  indeed  that  commonly  attributed  to  it  as  a  desig- 
nation of  the  Messiah  by  His  cotemporaries  ;  but  this  will  not  justify  any  in 
reducing  the  Christian  idea  of  the  divine  Sonship  within  the  meager  limits 


282  GOSPEL   NARRATIVES 

consciousness.  To  the  later  church  the  miraculous  birth 
was  important  and  for  an  excellent  reason.  Those  who 
are  disposed  to  deny  that  any  special  providential  aid  was 

of  the  Jewish  ideas  of  the  Messiah.  If  we  would  know  what  concept  the 
Synoptists  and  the  first  Christian  churches  had  of  Christ  as  God's  Son,  we 
must  not  ignore  the  first  two  meanings  ;  if  we  do,  we  shall  not  obtain  the 
historical  representation  of  their  idea  of  Christ  in  its  totality.  It  is  when 
we  view  them  together,  that  we  first  come  to  conceive  also  His  work.  To 
those  united  to  Him  by  faith  (which  He  desires  to  be  faith  in  His  Person, 
Matt,  xvi,  16,  17),  He  can,  as  He  does,  assume  union  with  God  only  if 
in  Him  there  is  God-with-us." 

In  this  noble  passage  Dorner  brings  out  certain  facts  which  have  not 
always  been  kept  in  mind  in  the  discussion  of  the  doctrinal  significance  of 
the  birth  of  Christ. 

In  the  first  place  a  full  consideration  of  the  incidents  narrated  of  the 
Baptism  reveals  that  Christ's  whole  previous  life  is  implied.  "This  is  My 
beloved  Son,  in  Whom  I  am  well  pleased,"  indicates  a  previous  obedience 
(ethical  Sonship)  which  is  now  rewarded  by  official  recognition.  The  key 
to  the  words  of  approval  spoken  at  the  Baptism  is  to  be  found  in  the  words 
addressed  by  the  youthful  Jesus  to  His  mother  in  the  temple  :  "  I  must  be 
about  My  Father's  business."  But  having  gone  thus  far,  we  are  compelled  to 
go  still  farther.  The  key  to  the  peculiar  self-consciousness  enjoyed  by  the  Lad 
at  twelve  years  of  age,  lies  in  the  dawning  sense  of  a  special  relationship 
which  must  be  dated  well  back  into  the  period  of  childhood,  and  can 
hardly  be  said  to  find  any  adequate  explanation  short  of  the  distinctly  In- 
fancy narrative  of  the  Lord's  birth.  The  story  is  consistent  and  the  parts 
hold  together.  If  the  Infancy  narrative  as  a  whole  must  go  we  have  no 
explanation  of  the  Baptism.  The  whole  official  career  of  Jesus  as  Messiah 
has  no  intelligible  connection  with  His  life  before  the  ministry.  We  have 
an  abrupt,  catastrophic  beginning  for  the  ministry  of  Jesus.  It  is  a  build- 
ing without  visible  foundations.  And  it  seems  to  me  that  the  theory  issues 
in  a  practical  depreciation  of  the  importance  of  His  non-ministerial  life — 
the  purely  human  life  of  service  and  preparation — -which  is  very  dangerous 
in  its  tendency  I  have  urged  in  another  place  that  the  incident  in  the 
temple  in  Christ's  youth  is  necessary  to  an  adequate  understanding  of 
the  growth  of  His  self-consciousness.  Dorner  links  His  whole  Messianic 
career  to  that  incident  in  a  way  that  is  at  once  exceedingly  striking  and 
suggestive.  He  is  speaking  of  Christ's  choice  of  the  phrase  "  Son  of  man 
as  His  own  favorite  self-designation.  He  thinks  that  while  the  phrase 
may  easily  have  been  taken  from  Dan.  vii,  13,  14,  it  does  not  offer  any 
explanation    of    His   choice   of  that    particular  Messianic  phrase.      On 


DOCTRINAL    CONSTRUCTION  OF  HISTORIC  FACT  283 

granted  to  the  church  will  at  least  admit  that  she  exhibited 
a  positive  genius  for  occupying  vital  positions,  and  for 
recognizing  the  near  and  more  remote  bearings  of  details 

the  contrary,  this  explanation  is  to  be  found  in  the  peculiar  quality  of 
Christ's   self-consciousness  as  primarily    divine,  and  secondarily  human. 

"  This  designation  must  be  the  product  of  a  self-consciousness  for  which 
the  fact  of  human  sonship,  or  being  the  Son  of  man,  was  not  that  which 
lay  nearest  to  it,  a  thing  of  itself,  a  matter  of  course,  but  that  which  was 
secondary  and  superinduced.  But  if  the  self-consciousness  of  Christ  were 
so  modified  that  His  being  human  was  presented  to  Him  as  something 
secondary,  then  the  primary  thing  in  His  consciousness  must  have  been 
something  else,  that  which  is  expressed  in  John  xvii,  5  ;  and  the  original 
wherein  His  self-consciousness  knew  itself  immediately  at  home  (comp. 
Luke  ii,  49),  must,  at  least  from  the  time,  when  He  had  Himself  entire, 
when  His  innermost  reality  came  into  being,  have  been  divine." 

We  have  then  in  the  words  spoken  to  Mary  the  primary  consciousness 
of  Jesus  in  expression.  The  secondary  consciousness  of  His  human 
nature  comes  later.  "  In  this  respect  it  deserves  especial  notice,  that  this 
apparently  humblest  name  first  occurs  in  the  time  of  His  maturest  con- 
sciousness ;  first,  therefore,  when  His  personal  self-consciousness  has  been 
perfected,  and  passes  through  means  of  the  generic  consciousness  into  the 
official.  "  On  the  other  hand  this  same  consciousness  rests  upon  the  pri- 
mary facts  of  His  being.  "  In  point  of  fact  it  is  impossible  that  One,  in 
Whom  the  divine  was  the  primitive  and  constitutive,  should  be  only  one 
man  among  others,  imperfect,  or  it  may  be,  sinful  like  them.  But  in  Him 
pure  humanity  must  be  presented  as  it  nowhere  else  is ;  and  that  it  may  be 
so,  even  the  nvevpa  ayiov(i.  e.,  the  Divine  Essence)  forms  the  constitutive 
for  the  formation  of  His  person.  Since  He  calls  Himself  not  a  Man-son, 
but  the  Man- son,  also  not  the  Son  of  a  man,  but  the  Son  of  man,  there 
lies  therein  of  necessity,  along  with  a  perfect  equality  with  others  in  what 
is  essential  to  humanity  ;  at  the  same  time  the  intimation  that  He  corre- 
sponds more  perfectly  than  the  others  to  the  concept  of  man,  that  He  is 
man  of  a  nobler  extraction,  the  pure  Son  of  man."  He  also  connects 
this  fact  which  manifestly  rests  in  part  upon  the  peculiarity  of  His  birth, 
Paul's  doctrine  of  the  Second  Adam,  who  completes  the  creation  of  the 
first.     See  note  (p.  55). 

It  is  thus  seen  that  even  from  all  points  of  view  the  Infancy  narrative 
cannot  advisedly  be  omitted  from  the  consideration  of  the  Lord's  person. 
This  historical  fact  has  a  bearing  upon  our  Lord's  self-consciousness  and 
upon  the  apostolic  interpretation  of  His  person  which  is  far  greater  than 
appears  from  explicit  statements. 


284  GOSPEL  NARRATIVES 

upon  the  main  fabric  of  faith.  The  miraculous  birth  was 
defended  and  emphasized  because  the  denial  of  it  was 
made  upon  grounds  which,  if  admitted,  imperiled  the  integ- 
rity of  the  entire  apostolic  faith.  The  miraculous  birth 
was  to  the  later  generation  of  believers  what  the  Resurrec- 
tion was  to  the  earlier — a  vital  and  essential  point. 123 

The  importance  of  the  miraculous  birth,  admitted  as  an 
historical  fact,  will  be  variously  estimated  according  to 
what  one  is  able  to  find  in  it.  To  some  of  us  it  seems  to 
safeguard  a  complete  and  Scriptural  Christology. 

I  fail  to  see  any  force  in  the  attempt  of  Reville  to  force 
an  incongruity  between  the  theory  of  preexistence  and  the 
miraculous  birth,  for  a  real  incarnation  involves  just  the 
completeness  of  surrender  to  human  conditions  as  he  denies, 
and  the  alternative  theory  implies  that  the  human  person- 

xThis  seems  to  me  the  truth  involved  in  Sabatier's  statement  quoted  by 
Lobstein,  p.  122. 

2  Eusebius  shows  that  the  virgin  birth  was  supposed  to  be  involved  in  any 
statement  of  the  Incarnation  (Con.  Marcellum  Ecc,  Theo.,  li,  II  and  ii,  4). 

3  That  any  general  affirmation  concerning  the  Incarnation  was  considered 
to  involve  the  miraculous  birth  is  seen  clearly  from  this  fact,  that  the  Nicene 
Creed,  which  is  intended  to  be  identical  in  every  affirmation  with  earlier 
creeds,  except  in  the  fullness  of  the  second  clause  which  affirms  the  consub- 
stantiality  of  the  Son  with  the  Father,  states  simply  that  Christ  "for  us 
men  and  for  our  salvation  came  down  and  was  made  flesh  having  become 
man."  That  this  sentence  was  interpreted  as  the  exact  equivalent  of  the 
earlier  phrase  of  the  old  Roman  symbol,  "  Born  of  the  virgin  Mary,"  is 
seen  by  the  fact,  first,  that  the  clause  was  adopted  without  controversy  as 
it  certainly  could  not  have  been,  had  it  been  intended  as  an  innovation  upon 
previous  belief.  Second,  by  the  statement  of  the  Arian  sympathizers  at  the 
succeeding  council  of  Antioch  in  341,  who  endeavored  to  make  a  statement 
acceptable  to  both  parties  to  the  controversy  in  which  they  affirm  their  belief 
that  Jesus  "  according  to  the  good  pleasure  of  His  Father,  came  down,  and 
took  flesh  of  the  blessed  virgin,"  etc.  (Lumby,  Hist.  Creeds,  pp.  55,  56, 
Cam.,  18S0. ) 

We  have  here  another  proof  for  the  affirmation  made  repeatedly  in  this 
book  that  in  the  early  ages  no  one  denied  the  miraculous  birth,  who  did  not 
at  the  same  time  deny  either  the  deity  of  Christ,  or  the  reality  of  the  Incar- 
nation. 


DOCTRINAL    CONSTRUCTION  OF  HISTORIC  FACT  285 

ality  of  Jesus  was  completely  formed  and  afterwards  united 
to  the  Eternal  Logos. 1 

I  am  convinced  that  a  profound  Christology,  which  is 
in  line  with  the  apostolic  affirmation,  will  find  the  miracu- 
lous birth  too  valuable  to  be  discarded.  In  harmony  with 
this  is  the  critical  investigation  which  points  strongly  to 
its  historical  reality. 

Lobstein 2  quotes  with  approval  Godet's  remark  on 
Keim's  solution  of  the  problem  presented  by  the  birth  of 
Jesus :  "  While  holding  the  paternal  concurrence  in  the 
birth  of  this  extraordinary  Man,  he  admits  a  divine  inter- 
position which  profoundly  influenced  and  completely  sanc- 
tified the  appearance  of  this  Being.  This  attempt  at 
explanation  is  homage  rendered  to  the  incomparable 
moral  greatness  of  Jesus,  and  we  think  it  leaves  untouched 
the  great  object  of  faith — Jesus  Christ's  dignity  as  the 
Saviour."  3 

Undoubtedly,  this  is  true,  but  it  suggests  to  one  mind 
at  least  the  extreme  probability  that  if  the  disciples  came 
so  near  to  the  truth  as  this  in  a  question  so  mysterious 
and  profound,  they  spoke  by  the  word  of  authority  and 
were  altogether  correct. 

At  least,  we  know  that  the  New  Testament  writers  made 
the  clearest  distinction  between  the  activity  of  God  in  the 
giving  of  the  sons  of  promise,  and  in  the  birth  of  Jesus. i 

It  seems  to  me  that  in  the  concession  which  Godet 
accepts  in  such  conciliatory  spirit,  Keim  though  without 
knowing  it,  surrenders  the  vital  point  at  issue  and  swings 
bodily  over  to  the  historic  position. 

1  See  discussion,  Note  E,  end  of  volume. 
See  Lobstein,  p.  133,  note. 
JP.  136. 

sCf.    the  acute  observation  of  Martensen  (Ckr.  Dog.,  Eng.  Trans.,  p. 
276)  on  this  theory  which  was  also  advocated  by  Schliermacher. 
4  See  the  remarkable  passage  in  Keim,  vol.  ii,  p.  47. 


286  GOSPEL   NARRATIVES 

The  statements  of  the  first  and  third  Evangelists  stand 
the  test  of  critical  examination,  and  the  historic  fact  is 
irreducible  into  legend  or  myth  or  dogma.  The  historical 
fact  each  one  must  estimate  and  value  for  himself.  At 
least,  we  may,  without  ceasing  to  be  intelligent  and  evan- 
gelical Christians,  hold  to  the  historic  faith  and  with  sincere 
and  cordial  assent  repeat  the  words  hallowed  by  ancient 
use  and  melodious  to  the  believing  ear :  I  believe  in  Jesus 
Christ,  His  only  Son,  our  Lord ;  Who  was  conceived  by 
the  Holy  Ghost,  and  Born  of  the  Virgin  Mary. 


AUTHOR'S   NOTES 


NOTE  A 

HISTORICAL    REVIEW    OF   THE    DISCUSSION 

There  are  certain  features  in  the  history  of  this  discussion  sufficiently 
striking  and  important  to  demand  some  separate  treatment.  The  general 
trend  of  the  discussion  seems  to  have  been  widely  misunderstood.  The 
confident  tone  of  the  negative  criticism,  the  somewhat  timid  and  indecisive 
character  of  the  defense,  the  weighty  names  which  have  been  recorded 
against  the  documents  have  contributed  to  the  establishment  of  a  wide- 
spread conviction  that  the  authority  of  the  Infancy  narrative  has  been  finally 
and  completely  shattered,  and,  that  in  all  candor  the  church  must  submit 
to  the  surrender  of  the  documents  and  to  the  subtraction  of  the  chief 
statement  contained  in  them  from  the  sum  of  Christian  beliefs. 

On  the  contrary,  we  most  seriously  maintain  that  the  critical  assault 
upon  these  sections  is  a  failure,  and  that  nothing  more  than  a  searching 
review  of  the  discussion  thus  far  is  necessary  in  order  to  exhibit  the  solid 
basis  for  what  must  seem  to  many  a  most  daring,  not  to  say  reckless, 
statement. 

At  the  outset,  I  should  like  to  call  attention  to  the  suggestive  fact  that, 
universally,  tribute  is  paid  to  the  beauty  and  sublimity  of  the  Infancy  nar- 
ratives. 

Even  Soltau,  who  sneers  at  Luke  as  a  historian,  and  makes  of  the  Infancy 
narratives  as  a  whole  a  melange  of  pickings  and  stealings  from  all  con- 
ceivable sources,  is  constrained  to  speak  of  them  as  "  those  unique  legends." 
The  attempt  of  Lobstein  and  others  to  save  the  narratives  as  Christian 
poetry  or  doctrine  having  a  high  religious  significance  and  permanent 
spiritual  worth  though  the  product  of  the  legendary  temper,  is  a  practical 
admission  of  the  same  kind.  It  is  difficult  to  understand,  however,  how 
men  can  fail  to  see  that  the  admission — that  these  narratives  exhibit  unique 
moral  and  spiritual  characteristics — inevitably  modifies  the  problem  which 
they  have  to  solve.  The  work  which  Cheyne  makes  in  trying  to  account 
for  the  transformation  accomplished  in  the    adaptation  of  the   primitive 

287 


288  AUTHOR'S  NOTES 

legends  as  Christian  narratives  shows  how  difficult  it  is  to  maintain  the 
mythical  hypothesis  in  view  of  the  peculiar  qualities  exhibited  by  the  docu- 
ments. On  the  mythical  hypothesis,  they  have  undergone  transformation  at 
the  hands  of  men  whose  elevation  above  the  moral  atmosphere  of  heathen- 
ism makes  their  susceptibility  to  heathen  influence  very  hard  to  account  for. 

Moreover,  concessions  go  a  step  farther  than  this.  There  is  a  wide- 
spread tendency  among  negative  critics  to  concede  that  the  myth  really 
embodies  a  historic  doctrinal  truth.1  Keim's  theory  that  Jesus  was  really 
supernaturally  begotten  though  all  the  human  agencies  were  present,  which 
was  itself  borrowed  from  Schliermacher,  has  been  repeated  under  various 
forms  by  several  writers  until  it  reached  an  ad  absurdum  climax  in  the 
theory  advanced  by  Mr.  Eadham  in  the  Academy  for  Nov.  17,  1S94.  This 
theory  really  involves  the  concession  that  the  evangelists  were  right  in  the 
fact  which  they  state  (*.  e.,  that  Jesus  was  supernaturally  begotten),  and 
wrong  in  their  statement  of  the  method  by  which  that  result  was  accom- 
plished. It  is  a  curious  vagary  of  opinion  which  would  concede  the  New 
Testament  writers'  ability  to  seize  upon  a  transcendant  fact  which  (upon 
the  mythical  theory)  was  utterly  beyond  their  reach  save  by  some  special 
revelation  or  intuition,  and  at  the  same  time  attributes  to  them  the  weak- 
ness of  combining  this  fact  with  a  puerile  fancy  of  their  own  as  to  how  it 
was  accomplished.  It  would  seem  that  the  same  inspiration  or  intuition 
which  gave  them  the  fact  would  also  aid  them  in  stating  the  mode  of  its 
occurrence  correctly. 

These  considerations,  however,  are  comparatively  unimportant.  They 
simply  exhibit  the  difficulty  involved  in  the  supposition  that  these  narratives 
are  of  legendary  origin.  There  is  something  of  worth  and  reality  in  the 
documents  which  negative  criticism  cannot  get  rid  of  and  cannot  account 
for. 

We  pass  to  matters  of  larger  moment. 

Previous  to  the  controversy  over  credal  subscription,  which  was  begun 
in  Germany  in  1892,  the  criticism  of  the  Infancy  narratives  was  simply  a 
detail  in  the  general  attempt  to  reconstruct  the  history  of  the  Christian 
documents.  It  was  one  item  in  a  general  campaign.  In  this  discussion  it 
cannot  be  said  that  the  Infancy  narratives  suffered  more  severely  at  the 
hands  of  the  critics  than  other  portions  of  the  New  Testament.  The 
general  attitude  of  a  critic  toward  the  N.  T.  documents  usually  carried 
with  it  a  corresponding  attitude  toward  the  Infancy  sections. 

Strauss  is  quoted  by  Lobstein  as  the  pioneer  in  the  negative  criticism  of 
the  Infancy  narratives,  and  this  is  correct. 

But  it  is  to  be  remembered  that  Strauss  should  not  be  quoted  against 
the  Infancy  section  exclusively,  insomuch  as  he  was  the  assailant  of  every 
cardinal  fact  in  the  New  Testament  narrative.  It  should  be  remembered, 
1  Cf.  W.  P.  Du  Bose  :     The  Gospel  in  the  Gospels,  1906. 


AUTHOR'S  NOTES  289 

also,  that  in  the  person  of  Strauss,  Christian  criticism  committed  suicide  and 
ceased  to  be  Christian.  The  Tubingen  theory  of  the  origin  of  the  New 
Testament  dealt  impartially  with  all  the  documents,  ranging  them  on  the 
one  side  or  the  other  of  the  great  Pauline-Petrine  controversy  according  to 
the  alleged  tendency  of  each.  In  this  distribution,  the  Infancy  documents 
shared  with  the  others,  but  suffered  no  more  severely  than  they. 

The  great  controversy  over  the  strictness  of  credal  obligations  in 
Germany  concentrated  the  attention  of  critics  upon  the  Infancy  sections. 
It  cannot  be  said,  however,  that  in  the  subsequent  discussion  the  documents 
really  were  given  a  fair  chance.  The  struggle  was  for  a  freedom  of  belief 
and  doctrinal  interpretation  within  churches  adhering  to  the  Apostles' 
Creed,  and  the  second  clause  was  seized  upon  as  a  salient  point  of  attack. 
The  feeiing  engendered  by  this  discussion  was  intense  and  the  controversy 
became  exceedingly  bitter.  Soltau's  book,  in  which  he  fiercely  anathema- 
tizes those  who  would  make  belief  in  the  virgin  birth  a  part  of  credal 
obligation  and  denies  the  evangelical  standing  of  those  who  accept  the  nar- 
ratives in  the  historical  sense,  is  a  fair  evidence  of  the  state  of  mind  of  the 
parties  to  this  controversy.  In  such  an  atmosphere  truth  is  bound  to  suffer. 
Upon  one  who  begins  the  study  of  this  controversy  without  strong  prejudice, 
the  impression  that  the  Infancy  narratives  have  been  unfairly  treated  is 
overwhelming.  The  genesis  and  the  history  of  the  controversy  accounts 
for  the  fact.  The  historicity  and  authority  of  the  narratives,  in  which 
occurs  the  statement  of  the  virgin  birth,  were  strategic  points  which  must 
be  taken  in  the  interest  of  an  embattled  liberalism. 

Precisely  analogous  is  the  history  of  the  discussion  in  England.  The 
controversy  concerning  the  birth  of  Christ  and  the  documents  of  the  Infancy 
was  precipitated  by  the  publication  of  the  volume  entitled,  "  Essays  and 
Reviews,"  by  distinguished  clergymen  of  the  Church  of  England.  This 
book  was  a  joint  plea  on  the  part  of  a  number  of  men  with  advanced  views 
for  a  larger  liberty  in  interpreting  the  historic  creeds  of  the  church.  It  will 
be  seen  at  once,  I  think,  that  in  a  controversy  precipitated  for  the  purpose 
of  gaining  freedom  from  the  pressure  of  over-tense  credal  obligation,  the 
document  upon  which  is  based  the  statement  of  the  creed  on  the  subject  of 
Christ's  birth  is  in  extreme  clanger  of  not  being  treated  on  its  merits. 

Belief  or  nonbelief  in  the  statement  becomes  the  badge  of  a  party. 
Men  come  to  the  study  with  the  strong  bias  engendered  by  a  prolonged 
and  bitter  controversy,  and  the  tendency  to  follow  other  men  without 
reexamining  the  subject  is  very  great. 

In  England,  the  controversy  has  been  concerned  not  so  much  with  the 
historic  trustworthiness  as  with  the  doctrinal  importance  of  the  statement. 
The  Contemporary  Review  for  August,  1902,  contains  an  admirable  sum- 
mary of  the  discussion  in  English  church  circles.  The  entire  contention 
of  the  article  is  that  differences  of  opinion  concerning  the  virgin  birth  are 
19 


29O  AUTHOR'S  NOTES 

compatible  with  loyalty  to  the  Christian  faith.  This  contention  is  supported 
by  citations  from  eminent  thinkers  of  various  shades  of  opinion  as  to  the 
importance,  from  a  doctrinal  point  of  view,  of  the  historic  statement.  A 
few  quotations  will  bring  the  reader  in  touch  with  English  thought  on  this 
subject. 

Dean  Fremantle  holds  that  the  question  concerning  the  mode  of  the 
Incarnation  is  not  of  primary  but  of  secondary  importance.  The  Bishop 
of  Worcester,  in  a  course  of  lectures  on  the  Historic  Trustworthiness  of  the 
Gospels,  says,  concerning  the  virgin  birth :  "  It  was  not  a  part  of  the 
apostolic  testimony,  which  was  testimony  to  that  which  they  had  seen  and 
heard,  beginning  from  the  baptism  of  John  until  the  Ascension."  This 
writer  further  contends  that  at  no  time  was  belief  in  the  Incarnation  asked 
on  the  ground  of  the  virgin  birth. 

Dr.  Sanday  says:  "There  is  this  difference  between  the  virgin  birth 
and,  for  example,  the  Resurrection,  that  whereas  the  latter  was  fully 
divulged  and  believed  in  by  the  church  almost  from  the  moment  of  its 
occurrence,  the  former  entered  into  the  common  faith  slowly  and  by  degrees, 
and  by  a  channel  which  was  apparently  private  rather  than  public  ;  entered 
into  it  we  might  say,  by  a  side  door  (though  as  we  believe  by  the  express 
appointment  of  the  Master  of  the  house)  rather  than  by  the  broad  public 
entrance.  If  any  one  desires  to  claim  the  benefit  of  this  difference,  I 
think  we  ought  to  let  him  ;  only,  on  the  other  side  when  this  is  done,  we 
ought,  I  think,  in  strictness  to  set  against  the  partial  silence  of  the  apostolic 
age  the  very  marked  emphasis  of  the  age  that  immediately  followed  that  of 
the  apostles."  These  quotations  might  be  multiplied  indefinitely,  but  from 
those  already  made  the  tenor  of  the  whole  discussion  may  be  readily  appre- 
hended. There  need  be  no  hesitation  in  admitting  the  secondary  importance 
of  the  question  of  Christ's  birth  as  compared  with  a  central,  all-embracing 
doctrine  such  as  the  Incarnation,  but  that,  with  this  concession  freely  made, 
the  historic  statement  of  the  Gospels  is  of  greater  importance  than  many 
seem  to  think,  is,  to  my  mind,  perfectly  evident.  With  the  utmost  read- 
iness to  grant  liberty  of  thought  and  interpretation  within  the  church, 
there  are  three  considerations  which  should  urge  us  to  hesitate  before  yield- 
ing to  an  attitude  of  indifference  on  the  subject  of  Christ's  birth. 

The  first  consideration  is  the  character  of  the  criticism  which  has 
resulted  in  such  widespread  repudiation  of  the  Infancy  narratives.  It  has 
been  said  that  the  Infancy  documents  have  not  been  fairly  treated  by 
critics.  I  must  refer  the  reader  to  the  volume  itself  for  extended  evidence 
for  the  truthfulness  of  this  statement.  At  this  point,  I  wish  to  call  atten- 
tion to  just  one  item  in  the  evidence.  Much  has  been  made  on  the  negative 
side  of  this  question  of  the  discrepancies  between  Matthew  and  Luke. 
From  Strauss  to  Gardner  (in  Contentio  Veritatis)  the  two  accounts  have 
been  set  against  each  other  and  forced  into  contradiction. 


author's  notes  291 

Now,  let  the  reader  suppose  that,  without  any  knowledge  of  a  contro- 
versy pending,  he  should  come  upon  two  brief  documents  occupying  but  a 
few  printed  pages  each,  purporting  to  be  the  narratives  of  the  same  events, 
but  from  different  points  of  view.  He  finds  upon  examination  that  while 
the  two  documents  diverge  in  certain  particulars,  they  converge  upon  six 
chief  statements  of  fact,  upon  which  the  significance  of  the  entire  series 
of  events  depends.  Then  let  him  take  up  an  attack  upon  'the  documents 
such  as  Lobstein's,  in  which,  first,  all  possible  use  is  made  of  discrepan- 
cies between  the  two  narratives  and  then,  second,  the  convergence  upon 
these  chief  statements  is  met  by  alleging  that  documents  separately  untrust- 
worthy have  little  force  in  witness  to  common  facts.  What  would  be  the 
impression  made  upon  his  mind  ?  There  could  be  but  one,  namely,  the 
impression  made  upon  my  mind  by  a  wide  review  of  the  literature  on  the 
negative  side  of  this  subject;  that  the  documents  have  been  unfairly  treated. 
What  testimony  to  any  great  historic  event  could  withstand  the  pressure  of 
such  treatment  ?  What  historic  event,  to  which  there  is  the  testimony  of 
more  than  one  witness,  could  be  admitted  ?  It  is  my  firm  conviction,  as 
before  expressed,  that  the  same  treatment  which  has  been  accorded  to  the 
Infancy  narratives  would  not  only  disintegrate  the  New  Testament,  but 
leave  most  other  historic  documents  a  matter  of  shreds  and  patches. 

This  consideration  is  immeasurably  strengthened  by  a  second  which  I 
would  urge  in  demurrer  to  an  attitude  of  indifference  on  this  subject, 
namely,  the  general  critical  position,  in  regard  to  the  statements  and  docu- 
ments of  the  New  Testament,  of  those  who  plead  for  this  larger  liberty. 

There  is  a  delusion  abroad  in  the  land  that  many  critics  and  scholars, 
otherwise  in  harmony  with  the  historic  position  of  the  church,  occupy  the 
negative  attitude  toward  this  one  item  of  traditional  Christian  belief.  Who 
are  they,  and  where  are  their  writings  ?  Personally,  I  do  not  know  of  one 
conspicuous  name  which  can  be  urged  ■  against  the  miraculous  birth  alone 
of  the  Christian  statements.  There  may  be  and  undoubtedly  are  some 
English  writers  pleading  for  a  liberty  for  others  which  they  do  not  ask  for 
themselves,  who  agree,  in  occupying  a  negative  position  on  this  one 
question.  But  in  general,  controversy  over  credal  obligations  both  in 
Germany  and  England  involves  not  only  the  birth  but  the  resurrection  of 
Christ.  The  men  from  Strauss  onward,  including  Keim,  Harnack,  Lob- 
stein,  Soltau,  Beyschlag,  Cheyne,  etc.,  who  reject  the  miraculous  birth, 
reject  also  the  doctrine  of  the  preexistence,  the  physical  resurrection,  and 
the  ascension  of  Christ  in  the  historic  sense  in  which  the  church  has  always 
held  to  these  credal  statements.  The  same  criticism  which  has,  in  these 
minds,  discredited  the  Infancy  documents  has  also  broken  down  the  testi- 
mony to  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  and  his  ascension  into  heaven.  Let  U3 
see  how  the  matter  actually  stands. 

The  Bishop  of  Ripon  in  his  introduction  to  the  Temple  Bible  under  the 


292  AUTHOR'S  NOTES 

head  of  Relation  of  Moral  Supremacy  to  miraculous  element,  says :  "  Now, 
in  the  common  stock  Gospel,  the  miraculous  accessories  connected  with  the 
birth  and  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ  do  not  find  a  place.  These  acces- 
sories are  found  in  the  group  of  secondary  witnesses,  in  narratives  common 
to  two  evangelists.  Upon  these,  in  the  first  instance,  we  have  purposely 
refused  to  lay  stress  ;  our  belief  in  Jesus  Christ  must  be  based  upon  moral 
conviction  not  on  physical  wonder." 

There  is  a  good  deal  of  confusion  of  thought  in  this  statement,  but  the 
general  idea  may,  perhaps.be  attained.  It  is,  of  course,  true  that  rational 
faith  in  Jesus  Christ  must  be  based  upon  moral  conviction  rather  than 
physical  wonder  ;  but  it  is  also  true,  that  so  far  as  the  first  disciples  of  the 
faith  were  concerned,  the  moral  conviction  upon  which  their  faith  was  based 
was  due  in  no  small  measure  to  the  physical  wonders  through  which  the 
moral  qualities  of  love,  compassion,  and  benevolence,  which  distinguished 
the  Christ  were  revealed,  and  I  am  not  convinced  that  the  case  is  materially 
changed  even  now.  The  "common  stock  Gospel"  theory  has  been 
refuted  often  enough  and  need  not  detain  us  now.  But  there  is  still  more 
serious  confusion  to  resolve.  What  does  the  Bishop  mean  by  the  "miracu- 
lous accessories"  of  the  birth  and  Resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ,  which  are 
testified  to  by  two  evangelists?  So  far  as  the  birth  is  concerned,  the 
miraculous  birth  itself  must  be  meant,  for  that  is  supposedly  testified  to  by 
only  two  of  the  evangelists.  But  as  to  the  Resurrection,  the  case  is  different. 
The  empty  tomb  is  testified  to  by  all  four  evangelists  (Mark,  ch.  xvi.  Mat- 
thew, ch.  xxviii;  Luke  xxiv,  1-3;  John,  ch.  xx);  the  vision  of  the  angels  is 
testified  to  by  three  witnesses  (Matthew  xxviii,  8-10  ;  Mark  xvi,  5-7 ;  Luke 
xxiv,  4-8)  ;  the  meeting  of  Jesus  and  the  women  by  two  witnesses  (Matthew 
xxviii,  S-10;  Mark  xvi,  9).  The  visit  of  Peter  and  John  to  the  tomb  by  two 
witnesses  (John  xx,  3-10;  Luke  xxiv,  12).  The  appearance  of  Jesus  to 
Mary  Magdalene  is  supported  by  two  witnesses  (John  xx  ,  11-18;  Mark,  ch. 
xvi).  The  appearance  of  the  Lord  to  Peter  rests  upon  two  evangelists  and 
Paul  (Mark  xvi,  12,  13;  Luke  xxiv,  13-35;  I  Cor.  xv,  5).  The  appearance 
in  the  midst  of  the  apostles  in  the  absence  of  Thomas  is  spoken  of  by  three 
evangelists  (Mark  xvi,  14-18;  Luke  xxiv,  36-49  ;  John  xx.  19-23). 

The  appearance  to  the  apostles  when  Thomas  was  present  is  spoken  of 
by  John  only  (John  xx,  24-29).  The  appearance  to  seven  at  the  Sea  of 
Tiberias  is  testified  to  by  one  evangelist,  namely,  John.  Again,  the  meeting 
with  the  apostles  and  the  five  hundred  in  the  mountain  of  Galilee  is  testified 
to  by  one  evangelist  and  corroborated  by  Paul  (Matthew  xxviii,  16-20  ;  I 
Cor.  xv,  6). 

Now  if  by  "miraculous  accessories  "  the  Bishop  refers  to  the  things 
which  are  testified  to  by  two  evangelists  or  less,  everything  goes  save  the 
empty  tomb,  the  women's  vision  of  the  angels  at  the  tomb  and  the  appear- 
ance to  the  apostles  in  the  absence  of  Thomas.     These  statements  seem  to 


AUTHOR'S  NOTES  293 

belong  to  what  is  called  "  the  common  stock  Gospel."  Perhaps  it  is  unfair 
to  draw  inferences  from  statements  so  loose  and  inexact,  but  the  general 
impression  made  upon  one's  mind  by  the  sentences  is  that  the  miraculous 
birth  and  the  miraculous  physical  resurrection  are  alike  rejected  as  lacking 
in  confirmation  at  the  hands  of  the  evangelists.  At  least  we  are  justified  in 
inferring  that  the  Bishop  is  uncertain  in  his  belief  as  to  the  reality  of  the 
"  physical "  resurrection, — that,  like  the  virgin  birth,  is  a  "  miraculous  acces- 
sory." 

Cheyne's  general  attitude  toward  the  whole  question  is  seen  in  his  book 
(P>ilde  Problems) ,  in  which  he  takes  the  four  statements  of  the  creed,  the  Virgin 
Birth,  the  Descensus,  the  Ressurrection,  and  the  Ascension,  all  done-over  hea- 
then myths.  This  scholar' s  attitud  e  is  also  seen  by  the  fact  that  the  articles  in  the 
Ency.  Bib.  (of  which  he  is  an  editor)  on  the  Gospels  and  on  Mary  were  written 
by  Schmiedel,  who  holds  that  we  have  but  five  absolutely  credible  passages 
about  Jesus  in  general  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels.1  Harnack  denies  the  reality  of 
the  physical  resurrection  and  the  preexistence  of  Christ  in  anything  but  an 
ideal  sense.  Prof.  Sanday  (quoted  above)  and  Rice  (in  Christian  Faith  in 
an  Age  of  Science,  p.  358)  hold  that  the  miraculous  birth  and  the  Resur- 
rection are  not  equally  supported  by  evidence.  That  the  arguments  for  the 
Resurrection  are  so  much  stronger  that  the  two  statements  do  not  belong  in 
the  same  class.  One  would  expect,  therefore,  that  in  many  instances  the 
reality  of  the  Resurrection  would  be  held  by  many  who  reject  the  narra- 
tive of  the  birth.  There  may  be  such,  but  they  are  not  sufficiently  prominent 
to  have  made  any  visible  impress  upon  the  literature  of  the  subject.  Gardner 
in  "A  Historic  View  of  the  New  Testament"  maybe  taken  as  a  fairly 
chosen  exponent  of  the  negative  attitude  toward  the  miraculous  birth. 
Taking  up  once  more  a  passage,  a  part  of  which  has  been  quoted  already, 
we  find  this  statement:  "  In  the  early  church  the  two  views  which  dated 
the  divine  origin  of  Christ,  the  one  from  His  birth,  the  other  from  His 
baptism,  were  rivals.  It  was  only  by  degrees  that  the  former  was  estab- 
lished as  orthodox,  and  the  latter  branded  as  heretical."  Now,  this 
last  statement  should  be  qualified  by  another,  that  this  conflict  does  not 
appear  in  the  New  Testament,  and  that  the  church  had  no  hesitation  in 
choosing  between  the  rival  theories  from  the  moment  that  it  appeared  that 
the  dating  of  Christ's  divine  origin  at  the  Baptism  was  due  to  notions  which 
denied  any  reality  to  the  Incarnation.  But  the  most  significant  statement  is 
to  come.  After  having  brought  into  artificial  opposition  the  story  of  the  birth 
and  the  story  of  the  Baptism,  the  writer  coolly  throws  both  of  them  aside.  He 
says  :  "In  fact,  both  the  tale  of  the  miraculous  birth  and  the  tale  of  the 
miraculous  baptism  are  early  and  somewhat  crude  attempts  of  the  Christian 
Church  to  give  embodiment  to  the  great  idea  of  the  Incarnation."  We  are 
not  surprised  to  find  after  this  that  Professor  Gardner  holds  a  "continuous 
spiritual  presence"  theory  of  the  Resurrection,  which  denies  any  objective 
^ncy.  Bib.  pp.  i88if. 


294  AUTHOR'S  NOTES 

historic  reality  to  the  occurrence  to  which  the  disciples  testify.  If  any  one 
supposes  that  the  story  of  the  miraculous  birth  is  rejected  by  these  men  on 
the  ground  solely  of  a  lack  of  adequate  testimony,  Gardner's  book  alone 
would  be  sufficient  to  dissipate  that  notion  once  and  for  all.  He  refers  to 
the  oft-quoted  statement  of  Mr.  Huxley's,  that  on  the  basis  of  his  scientific 
experience  he  would  be  prepared  to  accept  a  partheno-genesis  if  adequately 
supported  by  testimony,  and  then  clearly  intimates  that  the  great  scientist 
has  yielded  to  a  momentary  impulse  to  credulity  which  the  writer  could  not 
share  nor  sympathize  with — in  other  words,  that  no  amount  of  testimony 
would  convince  him  of  the  reality  of  the  occurrence.  This  statement  of 
Gardner  (which  follows  very  closely  the  one  quoted  above)  is  conclusive 
evidence  of  the  fact  that  his  attitude  on  the  subject  of  the  birth  story  is  due 
not  to  any  specific  weakness  in  the  narrative  itself  but  to  a  settled  and 
resolute  attitude  of  dislike  and  incredulity  toward  the  miraculous  in  general. 
And  what  is  true  of  Gardner  is  characteristic  of  the  negative  school  as  a 
whole.  The  real  underlying  vital  question  is  not  whether  the  testimony  to 
the  miraculous  birth  is  on  an  equality  with  other  statements  of  the  New 
Testament,  but  whether  any  testimony  could  be  accepted  as  adequate  for 
the  establishment  of  such  an  occurrence.  So  far  as  the  Infancy  naratives 
are  concerned,  they  have  not  been  studied  with  an  open  mind,  but  under  a 
pre-judgment  due  to  the  influences  of  a  comprehensive  philosophical  dogma. 
It  seems  to  me  perfectly  clear  from  the  history  of  the  discussion  that  the 
critical  principles  which  compel  to  the  rejection  of  the  Infancy  narratives 
would  carry  one  to  a  negative  position  as  to  the  trustworthiness  of  most  of  our 
Christian  documents. 

Once  more  I  urge  as  a  demurrer  against  yielding  to  a  position  of  indif- 
ference on  this  question,  the  sacredness  of  a  historic  fact,  all  doctrinal 
considerations  apart.  The  English  controversy  has  centered  about  the 
question  of  the  importance  of  the  virgin  birth  in  the  realm  of  Christian 
dogma.  It  has  been  asserted  by  the  whole  liberal  school  with  vehement 
asservation  that  whether  fact  or  not,  the  mode  of  Christ's  birth  is  a  matter 
of  secondary  importance.  It  is  the  whole  question  of  the  kernel  and  the 
husk,  the  form  and  the  essence  of  a  Christian  doctrine.  There  is  undoubtedly 
a  distinction  between  the  form  and  the  essence  of  any  human  statement  of 
truth,  but  for  the  sake  of  clearness  of  thought,  it  is  needful  to  ask  ourselves 
just  how  this  distinction  applies  and  to  what  sort  of  statements  it  is  legiti- 
mately applicable.  It  is  certainly  applicable  to  such  a  difference  as  exists 
between  the  Atonement  and  Anselm'  s  theory  of  the  Atonement  or  between  the 
Incarnation  and  Athanasius'  or  Godet's  interpretation  of  it.  The  Atonement 
is  an  eternal  fact,  the  substitutionary  or  moral  influence  theory  of  it  is  form 
But  what  possible  application  has  this  distinction  to  the  question  of  the  Lord's 
birth  ?  This  is  a  simple  historical  statement  which  is  either  true  or  false. 
The  distinction  is  made  in  the  phrase  "  the  Incarnation  and  the  mode  of  it," 


AUTHOR'S  NOTES  295 

but  the  distinction  does  not  hold.  No  matter  how  often  the  statement  is 
repeated  there  is  no  evidence  to  show  that  in  the  minds  of  the  New 
Testament  writers,  the  virgin  birth  was  a  theory  constructed  to  explain  the 
Incarnation,  and  hence,  a  temporary  or  provisional  form  of  statement  for  an 
essential  truth.  In  point  of  fact,  the  statement  of  the  Incarnation  was  a 
subsequent  development.  The  historical  order  was  not,  first,  the  conception 
of  the  great  fact  of  the  Incarnation  and  then  as  a  derivative  and  explanatory 
notion  of  the  virgin  birth,  but  first  the  virgin  birth  along  with  the  other  facts 
of  Christ's  life  and,  then,  as  a  corollary  and  derivative  from  all  these  facts, 
the  doctrine  of  the  Incarnation.  The  theory  of  the  Incarnation  was  the 
gathering  together  into  one  explanation  of  the  whole  substance  and  detail 
of  Christ's  self-revelation. 

Now,  as  a  supposedly  historic  fact,  based  upon  testimony,  the  virgin 
birth  has  a  different  standing  and  a  different  relationship  to  the  essence  of 
Christianity  than  any  dogma  however  important.  If  we  once  get  the  right 
point  of  view,  this  will  at  once  become  self-evident.  President  Rush 
Rhees,  of  Rochester  University,  said,  in  a  recent  number  of  the  Biblical 
World,  that  we  must  in  all  candor  admit  that  the  virgin  birth  of  Christ 
"  contains  nothing  essential  to  the  loftiest  Christology. " 

Now,  there  is  a  point  of  view  from  which  this  contention  urged  by  so 
many  is  true,  there  is  another  from  which  it  is  utterly  incorrect.  From  the 
view  point  of  a  practical  religion,  it  is  true  that  a  man  may  possess  a  lofty 
Christology  without  so  much  as  considering,  let  alone  believing  in  the 
virgin  birth.  A  man  may  adore  and  follow  Christ,  in  the  fullest  sense 
accepting  him  as  Lord,  and  thus  be  the  possessor  of  the  loftiest  Christology, 
who  cannot  give,  to  save  his  life,  a  connected  account  of  one  scene  in  the 
earthly  life  of  the  heavenly  Lord  whom  he  loves  and  serves.  The 
absence  from  this  man's  mind  of  any  one  incident  of  the  Lord's  life  may 
not  detract  from  the  clearness  or  the  splendor  of  the  vision  in  which  he 
lives.  I  hold  that  there  are  many  men — among  them  I  do  not  scruple  to 
name  Martineau — who  follow  the  heavenly  Christ  even  though  they  have 
dealt  severely  and  even  savagely  with  the  records  of  Christ's  earthly  life.  It 
cannot  be  too  often  emphasized  in  the  interests  of  Christian  charity  that  the 
possession  of  the  heavenly  life  is  in  a  measure  independent  of  the  possession 
of  a  reasoned  theology.  Life  is  first,  reasoning  upon  it  second.  One  may 
have  the  first  and  never  reach  the  second. 

But  there  is  another  view-point  than  that  of  the  plain  religious  man  to 
whom  theology  is  naught,  and  it  is  worthy  of  careful  consideration  in  this 
connection  :  The  view-point  of  the  thoughtful  theologian,  to  whom  the 
things  of  God  form  the  subject  of  lifelong  study.  The  scientific  and 
constructive  student  of  the  life  of  Christ  ought  not  to  be  altogether  over- 
looked and  from  his  point  of  view  every  ascertainable  fact  is  sacred  and 
essential.     Science   has   at  least  taught  us  that  all   fact  is  sacred.     The 


296  AUTHOR'S  NOTES 

number  of  quills  in  a  bird's  wing  matters  little  to  one  who  is  rapt  merely  in 
delighted  contemplation  of  its  flight,  but  to  the  scientist  it  is  a  matter  of 
vital  moment ;  whether  ants  have  a  queen  or  not  means  little  to  the 
business  man,  but  we  know  that  the  last  hours  of  a  dying  scientist  were 
sweetened  and  consoled  by  the  thought  that  he  had  discovered  the  long 
hidden  secret  of  ant  life. 

Whether  Christ  was  born  at  Nazareth  -or  Bethlehem,  conceived  by  the 
Holy  Ghost  or  brought  into  the  world  through  the  paternal  agency  of  Joseph, 
may  seem  to  be  a  secondary  matter  from  the  view-point  of  religious  senti- 
ment, but  to  the  careful  student  it  is  a  question  which  he  has  no  right  to 
leave  until  he  has  reached  a  firm  conviction.  The  fact,  whatever  it  may  be, 
is  sacred  and  divine.  Agassiz  put  the  truth  once  for  all  when  he  said,  "  A 
physical  fact  is  as  sacred  as  a  moral  principle." 

And  the  connection  between  historic  facts  and  the  essence  of  Christianity 
is  a  closer  and  more  vital  one  than  may  at  first  sight  appear. 

Cheyne  has  a  great  deal  to  say  about  the  relationship  between  form  and 
essence,  and  he  quotes  with  hearty  approval  certain  words  of  Baron  von 
Hiigel  in  his  work,  "  Du  Christ  Eternal  et  de  nos  Christologies  Successives," 
(1904),  from  which  I  wish  to  take  a  few  sentences  for  their  bearing  upon 
the  question  now  under  review.  "The  idea  of  the  Incarnation  supposes 
and  contains,  on  the  one  hand,  a  limited  series  of  historical  phenomena,  on 
the  other,  an  unlimited  reality  and  power  which  can  be  reached  and  which 
communicates  itself  to  us  across  these  phenomena."  He  further  holds  that 
these  phenomena  are  to  be  dealt  with  by  historical  methods.  He  continues, 
and  this  is  the  expression  with  which  we  are  especially  interested  :  "Let 
criticism  do  its  work.  Upon  its  completion  there  will  still  remain  unde- 
batable  facts  enough  for  the  needs  of  religion."  Ah,  then,  some  facts  are 
needful  for  religion!  There  is  an  imaginable  line,  beyond  which,  if 
criticism  should  carry  us  in  denial  of  the  "historic  phenomena"  of  Chris- 
tianity, religion  would  be  no  longer  possible. 

The  one  thing  needful  for  religion  is  a  Saviour  who  is  adequate  to  the 
task  which  our  human  sin  and  need  put  upon  him.  But  how  do  we  know 
that  Jesus  is  such  a  Saviour  ?  The  "  historic  phenomena  "  form  our  warrant. 
The  Christian  man  has  been  in  the  habit  of  saying  that  the  ground  of  our 
faith  in  the  Saviourhood  of  Christ  is  that  he  was  such  a  being,  as  exhibited 
in  His  birth,  in  His  life,  in  His  teaching,  in  His  miracles,  in  His  death,  in  His 
resurrection,  in  His  ascension,  as  could  do  for  us  what  we  need  to  have 
done.  But  this  warrant  lies  in  the  region  of  "historic  phenomena,"  and 
we  must  wait  for  criticism  to  do  its  work  before  we  can  be  sure  how  many 
facts  we  may  have.  Von  Hiigel  is  sure  that  we  shall  have  facts  enough, 
but  we  should  like  to  know  what  the  warrant  of  this  confidence  is.  The 
history  of  the  negative  criticism  of  the  New  Testament  is  no  sufficient 
guarantee  of  this  happy  issue.     Had  there  been,  during  past  years,  noth- 


AUTHOR'S  NOTES  297 

ing  but  radical  criticism  presented  to  the  world,  Christianity  would  have 
long  since  been  bankrupt  so  far  as  "historic  phenomena"  are  concerned. 
To  mention  Strauss  again,  the  critic  left  not  enough  "  historic  phenomena  " 
even  for  his  own  soul  to  find  a  resting  place  within  the  faith,  and  was 
obliged  to  surrender  the  name  of  Christian.  The  author  of  Supernatural 
Religion,  who  never  had  the  courage  to  give  a  father  to  his  attack  upon  the 
faith  of  his  countrymen,  left  not  enough  historic  phenomena  to  form  any 
reasonable  ground  of  assurance  to  one  who  would  be  a  rational  Christian. 
Faith  was  saved,  under  God,  by  patient,  learned  scholars  of  the  "  Apologetic 
Camp"  such  as  Weiss,  Tholuck,  Godet,  and  Lightfoot  who  battled  for  the 
Christian  facts  and  gained  them  back  one  by  one  until,  from  the  ruins  that 
Strauss  left,  we  have  come  to  the  point  that  Harnack  is  constrained  to 
admit  that  in  its  main  outlines  the  life  of  Christ  is  beyond  the  reach  of 
question.  And  the  points  at  issue  in  much  of  this  controversy  are,  to  be 
sure,  historical  phenomena,  but  phenomena  with  which  essential  Christianity 
is  bound  up,  for  the  historic  phenomena  form  a  part  of  the  revelation  of  the 
Son  of  God.  What  He  is  forms  the  vital  essence  of  Christianity  and  what 
He  is  these  things  help  us  to  know.  If  we  give  up  the  miraculous  birth,  the 
resurrection,  the  ascension  of  Christ,  as  nonessential  to  Christianity,  have 
we  left  creditable  witness  to  the  facts,  adequate  to  bear  the  strain  of  a  belief 
in  the  Incarnation  of  the  Son  of  God  ?  We  might  conceivably  give  up 
one,  but  the  critical  principle  which  takes  one  of  them  will  make  a  clean 
sweep  of  them  all. 

But  is  not  our  contention  justified,  that  the  birth  statement  must  be 
studied  first  of  all  as  a  fact  because  if  it  is  a  fact,  it  is  divine,  and  sacred, 
and  essential  ?  The  loftiest  Christology,  be  it  always  remembered,  is  that 
which  is  true  to  all  the  facts.  If  this  statement  is  correct,  we  are  entitled 
to  call  the  specific  critical  assault  upon  the  birth  narratives  a  failure  because 
the  critical  presupposition  which  it  demands  carries  the  critic  too  far  and 
lands  him  in  an  attack  upon  the  New  Testament  documents  all  along  the  line. 

The  bias  under  which  this  discussion  has  been  conducted  is  well  illustrated 
by  Lobstein.  In  the  note  appended  to  his  book,  in  which  he  furnishes  a  guide 
to  the  literature  of  the  subject,  he  speaks  of  those  who  occupy  the  negative 
position  as  the  "historical  and  critical  school,"  and  of  those  who  have 
defended  the  documents  as  belonging  to  the  "Apologetic  Camp."  He 
does  not  say,  but  most  clearly  implies  that  it  would  be  impossible  for  a 
historical  and  scientific  scholar  to  stray  into  the  "Apologetic  Camp." 

There  is  no  necessity  of  feeling  hurt  at  such  designations.  Adjectives 
are  cheap.  But  I  am  anxious  to  reach  a  definite  and  satisfactory  conclusion 
as  to  what  constitutes  a  historical  and  scientific  criticism.  It  would  seem, 
on  general  principles,  that  a  historical  and  scientific  criticism  would  be  a  criti- 
cism based  upon  documentary  evidence,  and  candid  and  careful  examination 
of  all  the  facts  ;  a  criticism  free  from  prejudice  and  leading  to  some  definite 


298  AUTHOR'S  NOTES 

conclusions.  It  was  something  of  a  surprise  that  a  scholar,  who  has 
reached  favorable  conclusions  upon  the  authenticity  and  authority  of  the 
Infancy  is  thereby  necessarily  excluded  from  the  class  of  scientific  and  his- 
torical critics  and  passes  into  the  "Apologetic  Camp,"  that  expression  mean- 
ing, I  suppose,  that  he  is  classed  as  a  defender  of  the  documents  at  any  cost 
to  science  and  history.  Such  an  arbitrary  definition  has  its  advantages,  for 
without  it  some  opponents  of  the  Infancy  narratives  might  fail  of  recogni- 
tion on  any  other  basis  than  their  negative  position  as  scientific  and 
historical.  Some  of  the  theoretic  vagaries  indulged  in  by  the  negative 
school  on  this  question  of  the  Infancy  narratives  almost  surpass  belief. 

Is  Soltau,  for  example,  "  scientific  and  historical  "  when  he  takes  it  for 
granted  that  because  in  the  year  A.  D.,  66,  Tiridates  and  certain  Magians 
came  on  a  visit  to  the  Emperor  Nero,  that  therefore,  of  necessity,  Matthew's 
account  was  an  adaptation  of  that  incident  ? 

Is  Schmiedel  (See  En.  Bib.,  Art.  Gospels)  historical  and  scientific  when 
he  cites  the  statement  of  Philo  concerning  the  miraculous  origin  of  the  sons 
of  promise  without  calling  attention  to  the  fact  that  such  statements  were 
purely  and  deliberately  allegorical  and  so  understood  by  all  who  were 
intelligent  enough  to  become  acquainted  with  his  writings :  or  when  he 
derives  from  the  arguments  of  the  apologist  Justin  with  a  Jew,  in  the 
middle  of  the  second  century,  after  the  connection  of  Christ's  birth  with 
the  Immanuel  passage  had  become  fully  established  in  Christian  thought 
and  the  meaning  of  the  passage  had  become  the  only  disputed  question, 
a  theory  as  to  the  origin  of  the  virgin  birth  from  the  passage,  which  must 
have  taken  place  at  least  two  generations  earlier? 

Is  Lobstein  himself  historical  and  scientific  when  he  deftly  evades  the 
question  of  chronology  which  is  the  crucial  difficulty  of  his  whole  theory  of 
the  origin  of  the  virgin  birth  statement  ? 

Is  Beyschlag  scientific  when  he  admits  a  historic  basis  to  the  entire 
nexus  of  events  recorded  in  the  Infancy  narratives,  and  without  any  adequate 
reason  denies  the  reality  of  the  miraculous  birth  itself,  making  of  the 
narrative  sober  history  with  one  wretched  bit  of  mythological  tinsel  embroid- 
ered upon  it? 

Is  Conrady  scientific  and  historical  when  he  not  only  makes  the  simple, 
direct,  straightforward,  historical  narratives  of  the  first  and  third  Gospels 
an  elaborate,  subtle,  Hebraized  transformation,  in  every  detail,  of  the  Osiris- 
Isis  Egyptian  myth,  but  also,  in  order  to  fortify  this  grotesque  theory  makes 
the  twofold  Gospel  narrative  a  derivative  from  the  Protevangeliuni  of  James, 
which,  practically  every  one  else  who  has  ever  read  it  recognizes  to  be 
from  one  to  two  generations  later  ? 

Is  Reitzenstein  historical  and  scientific  when  he  takes  a  ragged  bit  of 
Egyptian  papyrus  which  cannot  be  traced  farther  back  than  the  end  of  the 
second  century,  with  a  corrupt  text  and  meaningless  narrative  due  evidently 


AUTHOR'S  NOTES  299 

to  a  complete  doctrinal  misunderstanding  and  makes  it  the  immediate 
derivative  and  representative  of  an  older  and  more  authentic  document  than 
our  Gospels  ;  and  derives  the  canonical  narrative  from  this  nameless  and 
hypothetical  document  in  the  existence  of  which  we  have  no  sure  ground 
of  believing  at  all  ? 

Is  Cheyne  scientific  and  historical  when  he  repeatedly  goes  beyond  the 
documentary  evidence  in  the  support  of  his  theories  ?  He  claims  a  defi- 
niteness  for  the  Messianic  expectation  during  the  period  immediately 
before  the  coming  of  Christ  (p.  73),  for  which  there  is  a  conspicuous  lack 
of  documentary  evidence,  and  he  also  alleges,  in  the  absence  of  direct 
evidence,  the  existence  of  myths  which  are  needed  to  account  for  a  biblical 
statement  in  accordance  with  his  theory. 

Is  Cheyne  critical  and  historical  when  he  seriously  urges  a  parallel 
like  the  following?  (Cf.  pp.  88  and  106)  :  "  I  will  confine  myself  here  to 
mentioning  one  remarkable  traditional  story  which  cannot  very  well  be  passed 
over,  that  of  the  Babylonian  King  Sargon  of  Agade,  who  flourished 
about  3800  B.  C  ?  It  is  a  legend  of  mythic  origin,  and  represents  the  great 
king  as  having  been  born  of  a  poor  mother  in  secret,  and  as  not  know- 
ing his  father.  There  is  reason  to  suspect  that  something  similar  was  origi- 
nally said  by  the  Israelites  of  Moses,  and  would  it  be  strange  if  a  similar 
account  were  given  of  the  birth  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  second  Moses  ?  "  (P.  86.) 

This  brilliant  bit  of  parallelism  suggests  a  question  as  to  the  necessity 
of  going  so  far  afield  for  analogies.  This  may  be  scientific  and  historical 
criticism,  but  to  the  uninitiated  it  looks  far  more  like  what  Cheyne  de- 
scribes as  a"  substitute  for  history  addressed  to  the  pious  imagination." 
(P.  92.) 

The  imagination  seems  to  have  had  a  more  important  part  in  the  forma- 
tion of  the  theory  than  either  the  historical  or  scientific  sense. 

But,  the  negative  criticism,  as  has  been  intimated  before,  is  open  to 
attack  in  another  way.  It  has  issued  in  an  inescapable  tangle  of  mutual 
contradictions.  It  is,  of  course,  necessary  to  remember  the  limits  to  the 
fair  use  of  this  argument.  Bossuet's  argument  against  the  Reformation 
drawn  from  the  Variations  of  Protestantism  and  George  Henry  Lewes' s 
argument  from  the  History  of  Philosophy  that  philosophy  is  impossible, 
are  alike  open  to  the  objection  that  they  ignore  all  positive  results,  and 
treat  only  of  differences  of  opinion  without  recognizing  the  solid  element 
of  unanimity  which  underlies  the  variations  both  of  philosophy  and  of 
religion.  But  for  the  negative  criticism  of  these  documents  we  can  make 
no  such  allowance.  The  critics  differ  not  merely  as  to  the  interpretation 
of  facts,  but  also  as  to  the  facts  to  be  interpreted.  They  agree  in  nothing 
save  dislike  and  depreciation  of  the  documents.  Their  theories  are 
mutually  destructive.  Let  us  take  up  a  few  details  under  this  general 
statement. 


300  AUTHOR'S  NOTES 

One  of  the  major  arguments  of  the  opponents  of  the  narratives  is  that 
the  two  are  in  contradiction.  It  is  claimed  that  they  cannot  be  reconciled. 
Lobstein  affirms  that  they  differ  in  the  very  bond  that  unites  them.  I  have 
urged  that  this  contradiction  is  forced  and  artificial,  the  result  of  hostility 
to  the  documents,  not  the  cause  of  it. 

O.  Holtzmann  says  :  *  "  Between  these  two  accounts  of  Matthew  and 
Luke,  no  contradiction  exists,  even  with  regard  to  the  localities  there  is 
no  reason  to  suppose  any."  With  one  stroke  of  the  pen  in  this  sentence 
the  writer  expunges  the  work  of  his  predecessors  in  undermining  the  trust- 
worthiness of  these  two  narratives.  If  the  narratives  do  not  conflict,  the 
opposition  to  them  receives  a  checkmate  and  here  is  a  critic  who  denies  the 
authenticity  of  the  narratives  and  does  not  believe  in  the  miraculous  birth, 
but  who  denies  the  validity  of  the  argument  drawn  from  alleged  discrepan- 
cies. Beyschlag,  as  has  already  been  stated,  admits  a  historical  basis  to 
the  entire  narrative  of  the  Infancy,  and  Holtzmann  admits  that  there  is  no 
reason  to  question  the  substantial  historicity  of  the  narrative  of  the  visit  to 
Jerusalem  at  the  age  of  twelve,  both  without  apparently  recognizing  the 
logical  implications  of  this  admission  as  to  the  character  of  the  documents 
under  discussion. 

But,  of  course,  these  are  mere  opinions  and  somewhat  arbitrary  opinions 
at  that.  The  contradiction  goes  far  deeper  than  this.  It  appears  in 
connection  with  Isa.  vii,  14.  This  verse  may  be  said  to  have  played  the 
part  of  the  protagonist  in  almost  all  the  theories  which  have  been  built  to 
account  for  the  rise  of  the  Infancy  narratives.  It  is  not  too  much  to  say 
that  from  Strauss  to  Hacker,  who  writes  in  the  February  (1906)  number  of 
Hilgenfeld's  Journal  (Zeitschrift  fur  wissenschaftliche  Theologie),  that  nine 
out  often  of  these  theories2  absolutely  require  the  assistance  of  Isa.  vii,  14  in 
order  to  stand. 

It  is  interesting,  therefore,  to  discover  that  Cheyne  absolutely  rejects  the 
use  which  has  been  made  of  this  text  by  his  predecessors,  including  Prof. 
Harnack,  whom  he  mentions  by  name.  He  claims  that  not  only  does  the 
mistranslation  (?)  of  Isa.  vii,  14  fail  to  account  for  the  idea  of  the  virgin 
birth,  but  is  itself  a  phenomenon  to  be  accounted  for. 

He  urges  that  Isa.  vii,  14  is  useful  for  the  purpose  of  accounting  for  the 
idea  of  the  miraculous  birth  only  as  the  part  of  the  general  theory  of  a 
Messianic  "  dogma,"  which  controlled  the  apostolic  interpretation  of  Jesus. 
Of  this  more  hereafter,  but  at  this  point  I  wish  to  call  attention  to  Canon 
Cheyne' s  explanation  of  the  use  in  Matt,  i,  22  of  the  Immanuel  passage. 
He  says  :  "  As  for  the  quotation  in  Matt,  i,  22,  it  is  perfectly  well  accounted 
for  as  one  of  the  subsidiary  biblical  proofs  which  were  habitually  sought 

1  Life  of  Jesus,  Eng.  Trans.,  p.  85  . 

2  As  for  example  those  of  Keim,  Lobstein,  Soltau,  Harnack,  Conrady, 
Beyschlag,  etc. 


AUTHOR'S  NOTES  3OI 

for  by  the  evangelists.  The  real  supports  of  their  statements  were  traditions 
of  one  kind  and  another,  but  their  belief  in  the  written  word  of  prophecy 
led  them  to  look  for  a  justification  of  these  statements  in  the  prophetic 
Scriptures,  and  with  this  amount  of  justice,  that  sometimes  the  traditions 
and  the  prophecies  had  a  common  origin."  He  quotes  with  approval 
"another  scholar"  (Dr.  A.  Wright),  who  says  :  "We  cannot  allow  that 
this  error  gave  rise  to  the  doctrine.  In  this  as  in  other  cases  where 
quotations  from  the  Old  Testament  are  introduced.  ....  the  quotation  is 
later  than  the  context  (Synopsis  Introd.,  p.  xli).  "  1 

By  this  sentence  the  vast  majority  of  theories  which  the  critics  have 
elaborated  with  such  patience  and  learning  are  thrown  into  ruin. 

Now  let  the  reader  place  over  against  each  other  this  statement  of 
Cheyne's,  in  which  Isa.  vii,  14  is  thrown  aside  and  Harnack's  statement  in 
which  the  theory  of  heathen  origin  is  dealt  with  in  the  same  summary  way, 
and  the  deep  and  fatal  line  of  cleavage  which  runs  through  all  of  these 
explanations  will  be  made  manifest. 

All  conceivable  theories  which  are  made  to  account  for  the  origin  of 
these  narratives  as  legends  are  compelled  to  resort  either  to  Hebrew 
Messianism,  or  to  Heathen  Mythology.  On  the  one  hand,  those  whose  eyes 
are  open  to  the  intensely  Hebraic  character  of  the  narratives  are  compelled 
to  reject  at  once  the  theory  of  heathen  influence  ;  on  the  other  hand  those 
who  realize  that  such  a  myth  could  never  have  grown  up  on  Jewish  soil 
are  driven  to  heathenism  for  a  probable  source,  while  both  theories  are 
broken  on  the  facts. 

Cheyne's  theory  attempts  to  close  this  chasm  by  alleging  heathen 
influences  through  Hebrew  channels.  He  holds  that  the  heathenism  which 
appears  in  these  narratives  has  already  for  a  matter  of  decades  been  domes- 
ticated and  Hebraized.  This  theory  has  its  own  difficulties  as  we  have 
already  seen.  It  must  be  admitted,  however,  that  Cheyne  and  the  German 
school  whom  he  represents,  notably  Gunkel,  are  the  only  writers  on  the 
negative  side  of  this  question,  who  seem  to  have  any  adequate  realization 
of  the  magnitude  of  the  problem  which  they  are  attempting  to  solve. 
The  mythological  schools  are  justly  open  to  the  charge  of  wholesale 
credulity.  The  acceptance  of  much  of  their  reasoning  would  compel  one 
to  hold  that  there  is  a  very  close  analogy  between  a  comet  and  a  fox,  both 
having  long  tails,  but  they  do  realize  what  they  have  to  prove.  And 
the  burden  which  rests  upon  them  is  to  show  this :  That  there  was  in 
heathenism  an  "international  myth"2  which  by  adoption  in  Hebrew 
Messianism,  became  a  "  Christological  dogma,"3  having  certain  definite 
features,  such  as  supernatural  birth,  resurrection,  ascension,  etc.,  which 
reappear  in  Christianity  with  the  simple  change  of  a  personal  application 
to  the  historic  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  by  whom  the  dogma  is  filled  out.  It 
1  Cheyne,  Bible  Prob.,  pp.  194-5.  2  Cheyne.  3  Gunkel. 


302  AUTHOR'S  NOTES 

seems  to  me  to  be  necessary  simply  to  rise  above  the  details  which  are 
urged  in  support  of  this  extraordinary  theory  to  a  simple  outline  of  the 
theory  itself  in  order  to  pronounce  its  final  condemnation.  In  the  first 
place,  supposing  that  conceivably,  this  international  myth  of  a  world 
Redeemer  with  the  startling  detads  of  birth;  resurrection,  ascension,  etc., 
could  be  proved,  so  far  from  proving  Christianity  mythical  it  would  simply 
serve  to  make  mythology  Christian.  Keeping  in  mind  that  the  most 
distinctive  thing  in  Christianity  is  Christ  Himself,  not  the  things  which  hap- 
pened to  Him,  which  are  secondary  in  so  far  as  they  are  revelations  of  a 
fact  greater  than  themselves,  it  becomes  at  once  evident  that  in  this  inter- 
national myth  we  have  a  world-wide  foreshadowing  of  Christ  compared 
with  which,  in  vividness  and  power,  the  old  theory  of  Messianic  prophecy 
would  fade  into  dimness. 

But  the  whole  theory  is  beset  with  difficulties  on  all  sides.  It  breaks,  in 
both  aspects  of  it,  upon  the  multiplicity  of  incidental  and  contradictory 
details.  The  analytical  genius  of  the  great  mycologists  has  been  enabled 
to  evolve  out  of  the  chaos  of  heathen  mythologies  a  certain  underlying 
unity,  a  system  of  far-reaching  analogies.  But  is  it  conceivable  that  the 
uncritical  mythological  ages  had  any  such  conception  of  great  and  massive 
unities  ?  To  the  ordinary  student,  heathen  mythology  is  one  of  the  most 
laborious  and  wearisome  of  all  forms  of  study.  Most  readers  of  church 
history,  for  example,  skip  many  pages  when  they  come  to  the  subject  of 
Gnosticism.  It  takes  a  mind  of  a  peculiar  order  to  be  a  mythologist,  with 
patience  to  search  for  and  hold  and  frame  together  remote  resemblances. 
What  a  commanding,  intellectual  genius  must  have  been  among  the  dis- 
ciples, or  their  pupils,  in  order  to  choose  out  of  the  confusing  welter  of 
ancient  heathen  mythology  just  the  details  suited  to  set  forth  the  earthly 
life  of  the  Saviour  of  men !  To  tell  us  that  such  a  choice  was  made  sponta- 
neously, by  naive  and  untutored  men,  is  mere  child's  play.  Taking  for 
example,  the  subject  with  which  we  are  now  dealing,  the  difficulty  comes 
before  us  in  all  its  cogency.  The  alleged  supernatural  births  of  heathenism 
are  of  all  kinds  and  of  all  degrees,  from  the  supernatural  generation  by  the 
power  of  the  sun  god  Ra  in  Egyptian  lore  to  the  descent  in  the  bosom  of 
a  star  of  the  posthumous  heavenly  child  in  Zoroastrianism. 

By  what  subtle  process  of  elimination  and  choice  was  the  precise  mode 
of  Jesus'  birth  attained  ?  The  multiplicity  of  details  brought  forward  in 
support  of  this  theory  has  destroyed  it.  And  this  is  equally  true  of  Hebrew 
Messianism.  The  anxiety  of  Cheyne  to  postulate  a  development  toward 
definiteness  in  pre-Christian  Jewish  Messianism  which  is  not  justified  by 
the  documentary  evidence  is  explainable  enough.  He  needs  it  for  the  sake 
of  his  theory.  But  the  evidence  is  against  the  theory.  A  reading  of  the 
pre-Christian  Jewish  literature  will  convince  any  one  not  wedded  to  a 
thesis   that  a  definite,  detailed  Messianic  expectation,  with  simple,  uncon- 


AUTHOR'S  NOTES  303 

tradictory  portrayal  of  a  virgin  mother  and  a  divine  child  is  not  contained 
therein.  It  would  puzzle  one  to  find  anywhere  aside  from  Isa.  vii,  14  and 
the  verse  in  which  the  "growing  up  "  of  the  branch  in  Isa.,  ch.  53  is  described 
any  passage  in  which  the  Messiah  is  spoken  of  as  a  child  at  all.  As  a  matter 
of  demonstrable  fact,  the  current  Messianic  expectations  of  the  Jews  for  a 
century  or  more  before  Christ  came,  were  inchoate  and  confused.  We 
have  already  dealt  with  this  and  need  not  take  it  up  again.  In  a  word 
tins  international  myth,  which  is  alleged  to  have  been  carried  over  into 
Judaism  has  no  such  definiteness  either  in  outline  or  detail  as  to  make  it 
possible  that  it  has  created  the  Christian  narrative. 

But,  even  yet,  we  are  not  through  with  the  difficulties  connected  with 
this  theory.  On  the  basis  of  the  theory  as  stated  by  its  advocates  there  is  a 
synthesis  to  be  made  between  the  mythology  and  the  Messianism  before 
anything  consistent  can  be  resolved. 

According  to  the  theory  the  basic  idea  of  the  definite  Messianism 
developed  out  of  Dan.  vii,  13,  was  the  "Son  of  man."  But  the  basic 
notions  of  the  original  mythology  was  the  Son  of  God  or  of  the  gods. 
The  supernaturally  begotten  beings  were  creatures  in  whom  the  divine,  not 
the  human,  was  emphasized.  Certainly  in  the  Daniel  passage — if  the  passage 
refers  to  a  person  at  all — the  emphasis  is  upon  the  human  element, — a  being 
like  a  son  of  man.  The  supernatural  is  not  ignored,  but  thrown  into  the 
background.  Here,  then,  we  have  a  transformation,  which  must  be 
accounted  for.  The  notion,  out  of  which  the  mythological  interpretation 
of  Jesus,  if  such  we  must  call  it,  grew,  was  a  sense  of  His  unique,  supreme 
divine  significance.  What  value  to  such  thought  would  Dan.  vii,  13  have  ? 
In  the  Gospels  themselves,  the  two  ideas,  Son  of  man,  and  Son  of  God, 
appear,  but  in  such  peculiar  relationship  as  to  create  one  of  the  great 
problems  of  New  Testament  interpretation.  The  title  "  Son  of  man  "  is  the 
favorite  self-representation  of  Jesus,  while  the  expression  "  Son  of  God  "  was 
the  expression  used  by  the  disciples.  Now  the  histoiy  of  the  interrelation 
of  these  two  expressions  is  very  interesting.  This  expression  is  used  in 
Matthew  thirty-two  times,  in  Mark  fifteen  times,  and  in  John  twelve  times. 
Jesus  used  the  title  "  Son  of  God  "  very  seldom  and  then  usually  in  speaking 
of  Himself  as  the  Son,  or  accepting  their  designation  and  thus  indirectly 
claiming  it.  Now,  it  is  evident  that  the  disciples  were  not  under  the 
influence  of  the  passage  from  Daniel,  else  they  would  have  used  the  title 
"  Son  of  man."  Rather  they  drew  the  belief  which  they  expressed  in  the 
words  "Son  of  God"  from  the  way  in  which  Jesus  spoke  of  the  Father 
and  from  the  general  tone  of  His  life.  It  is  evident  that  while  Jesus  con- 
stantly spoke  of  Himself  as  Son  of  man,  making  of  it  a  Messianic  title,  the 
disciples  did  not  consider  it  fitting  that  they  should  use  it,  preferring  the 
emphasis  upon  His  divinity  given  them  by  the  title  "  Son  of  God."  In  other 
words,  an  almost  complete  severance  is  maintained  between  the  titles  "Son 


304  AUTHOR'S  NOTES 

of  man"  and  "Son  of  God,"  and  the  disciples,  supposedly  under  the 
influence  of  Messianism  created  by  the  Daniel  passage,  do  not  use  the 
phrase  based  upon  that  passage  ;  while  Jesus  Himself,  whose  claims  they 
are  supposed  to  have  exaggerated  in  the  title  "  Son  of  God,"  almost  never 
used  that  title. 

The  disciples  then  reached  their  conclusions  as  to  the  person  of  Christ, 
not  in  obedience  to  any  myth-making  tendency,  but  as  necessary  inference 
from  what  they  saw  in  Jesus'  life.  Had  they  been  myth-making  in  the 
interests  of  His  Divinity  they  would  never  have  put  on  record,  as  coming 
from  Jesus  Himself,  a  phrase  so  open  to  a  doubtful  construction  as  the  "  Son 
of  man,"  which,  both  to  superficial  thought  and  to  deeper  study,  empha- 
sizes the  human  element  in  His  being.  The  transformation  of  the  heathen 
myth,  if  there  was  such  a  myth,  in  Daniel  destroys  its  significance  in 
this  study,  for  it  is  separated  entirely  from  any  formative  influence  in  the 
faith  of  the  disciples. 

The  conclusion  follows  that  if  the  heathen  influence  is  not  found  in  the 
pre-Christian  documents,  it  is  not  to  be  looked  for  in  the  New  Testament. 
The  multiplication  of  instances  of  marvelous  births  among  the  heathen  has 
no  significance  unless  a  connection  can  be  definitely  established  with  the 
authors  of  the  Christian  documents.  The  sea  may  be  swarming  with 
strange  creatures,  but  this  matters  little  to  him  who  stands  upon  the  shore. 
The  fantasies  of  heathenism  cannot  explain  documents  written  by  men  who 
are  not  accessible  to  heathen  influences. 

In  all  these  theories,  the  nexus  between  the  heathen  ideas  and  the  nar- 
ratives, which  they  are  supposed  to  explain,  is  imaginary  and  not  real.  The 
attempt  to  connect  the  two  cycles  of  thought  breaks  down.  The  latest 
advocate 1  of  this  Protean  and  slippery  theory  attempts  to  bring  the  heathen 
birth-stories  close  to  the  New  Testament  through  Philo's  allegories  and  the 
birth-wonders  of  the  Old  Testament.  This  is  positively  the  nearest 
approach  of  heathenism  to  the  New  Testament.  Here,  if  anywhere,  the 
bridge  is  to  be  built.  But  in  order  to  form  the  connection,  Hacker  is 
forced  to  make  a  number  of  statements  which  not  only  cannot  be  proved, 
but  seem  to  me  capable  of  emphatic  disproof. 

In  the  first  place,  after  saying  what  is  unquestionably  true,  that  to  pure 
Jewish  feeling  the  birth-relationships  taught  in  the  heathen  myths  were  a 
horror,  he  states  that  in  the  period  immediately  preceding  the  birth  of 
Christ  there  was  no  longer  any  pure  Jewish  feeling.  I  hold  that  this  last 
statement  is  as  incorrect  as  the  former  statement  is  correct.  That  pure 
Jewish  feeling  had  wholly  departed  from  Israel  is  surely  a  reckless  state- 
ment, which  the  history  of  the  period  fails  to  confirm.  Most  cogent 
evidence  against  it  is  furnished  by  the  Infancy  documents  themselves. 

Where  will  you  find,  even  in  the  Old  Testament,  more  thorough  and 
1  Hacker,  referred  to  above. 


AUTHOR'S  NOTES  305 

genuine  Jews  than  the  group  of  people,  who  are  brought  together  by  the 
Infancy  narratives ;  and  where  will  you  find  purer  Jewish  feeling  than 
breathes  in  the  narratives  themselves?  Every  line  of  those  beautiful 
stories  contradicts  the  statement  that  pure  Jewish  feelings  had  vanished 
from  Israel. 

The  second  statement  of  Hacker's  which  is  open  to  serious  question  is 
that  in  the  Messianic  expectations  of  the  Jewish  Apocalyptic,  this  heathen 
fantasy  of  supernatural  birth  played,  "  as  it  were,  first  violin."  What  is  the 
documentary  foundation  for  this  extraordinary  statement  ?  After  a  careful 
study  of  Apocalyptic  literature,  I  have  failed  to  find  any  other  foundation 
for  it  than  some  references  to  a  sudden  and  miraculous  manifestation  of  the 
Messiah,  but  of  a  miraculous  birth  from  a  human  mother,  I  find  not  so 
much  as  a  hint.  Hacker  refers  to  the  Haggadic  adornment  of  the  life  of 
Moses  and  Philonian  parables,  both  of  which  are  useless  for  the  purpose, 
and  then  by  an  extraordinary  exhibition  of  mental  agility,  he  lands  upon 
the  conclusion  that  it  is  very  possible  that  the  virgin  birth  was  a  Judaic 
Messianic  dogma.  If  this  be  so,  Justin's  argument  with  Trypho  takes  a 
strange  and  unaccountable  turn,  for  the  question  ought  not  to  have  been 
whether  the  passage  in  Isaiah  really  means  that  the  Messiah  should  be  virgin 
born,  but  the  purely  historical  question  whether  Jesus  was  thus  born  or  not. 
Can  any  one,  on  the  basis  of  this  figment  of  a  Messianic  dogma  of  the 
virgin  birth,  account  for  the  comparative  silence  of  the  New  Testament  on 
the  subject?  l 

A  third  statement  of  Hacker's  which  is  open  to  question  is  that  the 
transition  from  the  birth-stories  of  the  Sons  of  Promise  to  the  virgin 
birth  was  but  a  single  step.  This  statement  cannot  be  supported.  The 
difference  between  these  two  notions  is  not  a  step,  great  or  small,  but  the 
transition  from  one  world  of  thought  into  another  utterly  different.  It  is 
not  a  step,  but  a  chasm.  The  gift  of  children  in  response  to  prayer,  to  two 
parents  who  have  hitherto  been  disappointed,  is  one  thing  ;  the  conception 
of  a  child  by  the  immediate  creative  activity  of  an  unseen  and  spiritual  God 
is  quite  another.  As  we  have  hitherto  contended,  the  disciples  lacked  the 
initiative  to  pass  over  this  great  distance.  Moreover,  the  motive  for  passing 
it  is  lacking.  There  is  no  reason  for  supposing  that  the  Jews  would  con- 
sider birth  from  a  virgin  more  honorable  than  birth  from  a  married  woman, 
while  they  certainly  could  not  be  blind  to  the  difficulty  and  danger  of  the 
statement. 

In  short,  Hacker's  attempt  to  bridge  the  chasm  between  heathenism  and 
the  New  Testament  is  a  rope  of  sand.  It  cannot  bear  its  own  weight,  let 
alone  the  weight  of  the  theory  which  it  is  supposed  to  sustain. 

Moreover,  all  these  arguments  aside,  there  is  one  further  consideration 
which  ought  to  be  very  carefully  canvassed.     Is  Christianity  a  syncretism  ? 
1  See  Steele,  Meth.  R.     Jan.  1892. 
20 


306  AUTHOR'S  NOTES 

In  answering  this  question,  I  wish  to  quote  no  less  an  authority  than 
Fairbairn.  In  his  great  work  on  the  Philosophy  of  the  Christian  Religion 
(pp.  517  ff. ),  he  says:  "Strictly  speaking,  religions  are  not  made,  they 
grow ;  for  growth  is  the  process  which  life  follows  when  it  builds  up  an 
organism  for  its  own  inhabitation  and  enlargement.  Opposed  to  growth  is 
the  process  we  may  call  contrivance  or  manufacture,  which  is  represented 
in  religion  by  syncretism,  by  the  conscious  selection  and  adjustment  of  old 
materials  to  create  a  new  cult  or  system.  Now  this  process  has  been  known 
in  both  ancient  and  modern  times,  the  age  in  which  Christianity  was  born 
being  particularly  familiar  with  it.  There  were  Romans  who  affected  to 
think  of  the  East  as  religious  and  wise,  of  Egypt  as  venerable  and  myste- 
rious ;  and  it  became  a  Roman  fashion  to  seek  from  the  strange  deities  and 
rites  of  the  Orient  replenishment  for  the  exhausted  native  sources  of  inspi- 
ration. 

"  But  Syncretism  in  religion,  like  eclecticism  in  philosophy,  is  a  sign  of 
decadence,  for  it  creates  nothing  that  outlives  the  age  or  coterie  that  gave 
it  birth.  It  signifies  that  mind,  fallen  into  conscious  impotence  and  hope- 
lessness, has  turned  its  back  upon  the  future  and  its  face  to  the  past ;  and 
despairing  of  producing  or  achieving  anything,  has  begun  to  call  upon 
vanished  men  and  systems  for  principles  which  may  help  it  to  live.  The 
mood  is,  as  a  rule,  self-conscious  and  cynical  as  well  as  despondent,  and  so 
the  formulae  it  borrows,  it  builds  usually  to  the  music  of  a  little  disdainful 
and  finical  criticism,  into  a  house  of  consolation  and  amusement  rather  than 
a  temple  of  truth  and  worship. 

"  The  last  religion  we  could  describe  as  a  syncretism  is  the  Christian, 
and  that  for  many  reasons,  though  it  will  be  enough  to  mention  here  two  : 
(a)  Its  founders  were  too  completely  ignorant  of  other  theologies  and 
philosophies  to  be  affected  by  them  ;  and  (b)  it  was  not  an  articulated 
skeleton,  but  a  living  organism  carrying  within  itself  the  principle  of  life. 

"  This  does  not  mean  that  it  was  without  relationship  to  the  past,  for 
without  the  persons,  ideas,  customs  and  influences  it  inherited,  it  never 
could  have  been ;  nor  that  it  was  isolated  from  the  present,  for  if  it  had 
been  untouched  by  living  forces,  it  could  not  have  reached  living  men. 
But  it  means  that  it  behaved  as  a  living  being  behaves,  who,  while  the  issue 
of  a  long  ancestry,  yet  grows  by  transmuting  into  his  own  substance  the 
matter  his  own  environment  supplies.  In  other  words,  the  religion  grew 
because  it  lived,  and  it  lived  because  it  carried  within  it  an  imminent  and 
architectonic  idea,  which  governed  it,  and  yet  was  essentially  its  own. 
That  idea  was  the  belief  it  held  concerning  Jesus  Christ,  which  double  name 
denoted  at  once  the  historical  person  who  was  the  first  Christian  and  the 
transcendental  ideal  which  had  transformed  God  and  religion,  man  and 
history. ' ' 

That  syncretism  is  the  evidence  of  religious  decadence,  the   sign  of  the 


AUTHOR'S  NOTES  307 

closing  of  an  era,  not  its  beginning,  is  capable  of  the  most  abundant  illus- 
tration and  proof.  That  Christianity,  the  most  potent  and  revolutionary 
faith  that  ever  entered  the  world,  should  be  touched  at  the  very  beginning 
of  its  triumphant  career  with  this  mark  of  senility  is  unbelievable.  The 
story  of  the  birth  of  Christ  is  no  heathen  notion  adhering  to  the  New 
Testament,  but  a  vital  and  consonant  element  in  the  portrayal  of  the  unique 
Person  in  whom  Christianity  consists.  The  miraculous  conception,  and 
the  normal  birth  and  childhood  of  Jesus,  indicated  both  His  unity  with 
our  humanity  and  His  transcendence  in  it  as  the  "  ideal  which  has  trans- 
formed God  and  religion,  man  and  history.  " 

We  quote  again  from  the  same  author  a  striking  and  truthful  description 
of  the  Infancy  narrative  and  its  relationship  to  the  rest  of  the  Gospel. 
"They  (the  Evangelists)  inherited  an  august  conception  of  Deity,  the 
least  anthropomorphic,  the  most  untouched  by  human  passion,  weakness, 
or  mutability,  known  to  antiquity ;  and  to  represent  this  God  as  the  Father 
of  Jesus,  without  degrading  or  undeifying  Him,  was  a  literary  task  of  the 
rarest  delicacy  and  difficulty.  In  the  mythical  age  of  Greece,  it  had  been 
easy  to  imagine  men  as  the  sons  of  Zeus,  and  Zeus  as  the  father  of  gods 
and  men ;  but  the  more  the  mythical  age  receded,  the  more  its  crude  images 
and  grotesque  dogmas  grew  distasteful  to  the  Greek  intelligence,  which 
refined  deity  by  making  him  too  abstract  to  stand  in  real  or  concrete  rela- 
tions with  men. 

And  what  philosophy  had  done  for  Greece,  the  monotheistic  passion  did 
for  Israel ;  with  the  result  that  the  more  Jehovah  was  exalted,  the  greater 
became  His  distance  from  man,  and  the  less  could  the  sons  of  God  be  con- 
ceived as  mixing  with  the  daughters  of  men.  The  sublimest  things  are 
the  most  easily  made  ridiculous,  the  most  sacred  can  be  most  utterly  pro- 
faned. And  if  any  one  had  been  asked  beforehand  to  describe  the 
probable  action  of  the  idea  of  Jesus  as  the  Son  of  the  Most  High  on  the 
idea  of  God,  would  He  not  have  drawn  a  dismal  picture  of  Majesty  low- 
ered into  dust,  spiritually  coarsened  and  materialized,  and  reason  humbled 
by  being  carried  back  into  that  twilight  of  intelligence  when  as  yet  gods 
were  indistinguishable  from  men  ?  But  the  result  is  exactly  the  opposite. 
The  supernatural  birth  is  touched  with  a  most  delicate  hand,  and  has  no 
essential  feature  in  common  with  the  mythical  theogonies  which  earlier 
ages  had  known.  The  marvelous  thing  is  not  that  we  have  two  birth 
stories,  but  that  we  have  only  two  *  ;  and  that  they  occupy  so  small,  so  in- 
cidental, so  almost  negligible  a  place  in  the  New  Testament  as  a  whole."  2 
From  this  statement,  one  can  see  how  utterly  impossible  it  is  in  view  of  its 
1  The  importance  of  this  statement  ought  not  to  be  overlooked.  In  all  heroic 
myths,  birth  wonders  are  multiplied  in  great  numbers.  See  e.  g.,  Jackson: 
Life  of  Zoroaster,  chap,  iii,  pp.  23-35. 

2  Phil.  Chr.  Rel. ,  p.  348  f.      The  whole  section  ought  to  be  read. 


308  AUTHOR'S  NOTES 

spiritual  value  to  separate  the  birth  narrative  from  the  rest  of  the  New 
Testament.  It  is  inherently  harmonious  with  the  rest  of  the  portrait ;  it 
was  drawn  under  the  same  general  influence  and  inspiration. 

Once  more,  the  attack  upon  the  Infancy  section  is  weak  from  the  doc- 
trinal point  of  view.  I  have  tried  to  be  very  careful  throughout  this  book 
to  lay  no  more  stress  upon  the  miraculous  birth  than  belongs  to  it  as  one 
of  the  historic  facts  in  the  earthly  life  of  Jesus.  It  is  one  of  the  items  in 
the  portraiture  of  Him  which  in  its  totality  forms  the  basis  of  our  faith. 

In  much  of  the  controversial  literature  on  this  subject,  the  distinction  is 
sharply  drawn  between  the  primary  importance  of  the  great  doctrine  of 
the  Incarnation,  and  the  secondary  importance  of  the  miraculous  birth  as 
constituting  merely  the  mode  of  its  accomplishment.  The  Incarnation  is 
essential,  the  miraculous  birth  is  non-essential.  Now  so  long  as  one  is 
content  to  hold  the  Incarnation  as  a  general  fact  and  refuses  to  think  upon 
the  question  of  the  mode  of  its  accomplishment,  it  is  possible  to  treat  the 
birth  as  a  negligible  factor.  But  the  instant  one  allows  the  mind  to  reflect 
upon  the  question  of  the  mode  of  the  Incarnation,  the  importance  of  the 
birth  becomes  at  once  apparent.  As  a  matter  of  experience,  it  is  impossible 
to  remain  in  a  permanent  condition  of  suspended  judgement  as  to  the  mode 
by  which  the  Incarnation  was  accomplished. 

Historically,  there  seem  to  be  but  two  alternatives.  The  rejection  of  the 
Infancy  narratives  and  the  miraculous  birth  with  the  implication  that  the 
life  of  Jesus  was  miraculous  throughout  and  that  His  sonship  to  God  was 
unique  from  the  beginning  seems,  logically,  or  at  least  historically,  to  issue 
in  the  dating  of  His  Sonship  and  Divinity  at  the  Baptism.  This  was  the 
view  of  Cerinthus.  This  also  is  the  view  of  Soltau,  and  Prof.  Corrsen  has 
given  the  opinion  new  currency  by  the  astonishing  theory  that  the  first 
appearance  of  the  Logos  was  at  the  Baptism  when  Jesus  was  a  grown  man 
thirty  years  of  age  and  the  Lord  said :  This  day  have  I  begotten  thee.1 

Is  it  conceivable  that  the  life  of  Jesus  should  be  divided  into  two  parts, 
one  of  which  should  be  non-miraculous  throughout,  the  other  inaugurated 
and  carried  forward  by  miracle  ?  Is  it  conceivable  that  an  absolutely  new 
beginning  should  be  made  in  the  life  of  Jesus  at  the  Baptism?  Is  it  con- 
ceivable that  such  a  career  as  that  of  Jesus  between  the  Baptism  and  the 
Ascension  could  have  been  accomplished  without  any  foregleams,  any 
indications  to  Himself  or  to  others  of  the  career  which  was  in  store  for 
Him  ?  Did  the  voice  from  heaven  fall  upon  ears  altogether  unprepared 
by  anything  distinctive  and  peculiar  in  His  previous  experience  and  His 
consciousness  of  relationship  to  God  ? 

But  this  is  not  the  whole  of  the  contradiction.  This  theory  binds  to- 
gether in  unnatural  union  a  non-miraculous  and  a  miraculous  being,  a 
humanistic  and  a  divine  Christ.  It  is  unscriptural,  for  it  describes  a  man 
x  Corrsen  in  Gottingischegelehrte  Anziegen,  1899,  pp.  310  ff. 


AUTHOR'S  NOTES  309 

becoming  God,  not  God  becoming  a  man.     It  is  illogical  because  if  Jesus 
was  the  Son  of  God  sent  into  the  world  at  the  Baptism,  He  was  also  the 
Son  of  God  sent  into  the  world  an  hour  or  a  year  or  thirty  years  before  the 
Baptism.     He  was  the  same  person  from  the  beginning  to  the  end  of  His 
life.     The  Messianic  career  of  Jesus  began  at  the  birth  ;  the  Messianic 
consciousness  of  Jesus  was  a  matter  of  continuous  growth  from  the  dawn 
of  consciousness  to  the  full  orbed  glory  of  that  dedicatory  hour  at  the 
Jordan  ;    the  Messianic  Person  of  Jesus  was  the  same   throughout  His  en- 
tire life.     Before  the  Baptism,  Jesus  was  the  Messiah,  in  preparation  and 
obscurity ;  after  the  Baptism  He  was   the  Messiah  acknowledged  and  at 
work,  but  both  before  and  after  the  Baptism,  He  was  the  Son  of  God  set 
apart  by  every  implication  of  His  being  to  the  Messiahship.     The  tree  is 
in  the  germ.     If  we  could  have  a  complete  life  history  of  it,  we  should 
see  one  phase  of  growth  opening  into  another  continuously— the  unfolding 
in  a  vital  process  of  what  was  enfolded  from  the  beginning.     So  it  must 
have  been  in  the  career  of  Jesus.     His  entire  life  from  the  beginning  to 
the  close  must  have  been  one  and  the  same.     If  He  was  the  incarnation 
of  the  Eternal  Son  of  God,  that  incarnation  must  have  been  coterminous 
with  His  life.     If  His  person  was  ever  miraculous,  it  must  have  been  mi- 
raculous throughout.     The  miracle  was  concealed  until  the  manifestation 
at  the  Jordan,  but  it  was  none  the  less  real.     The  voice  from  heaven  said 
to  Him,  "Thou  art  my  Son,  in  Whom  I  am  well  pleased."  x     Does  anyone 
seriously  contend  that  at  that  moment  Jesus  became  the  Son  of   God? 
Obviously  the  voice  acknowledged  the  Sonship  of  Jesus  tested  by  obedi- 
ence and  sacrifice  through  the  hidden  years. 

In  the  narrative  of  the  wedding  at  Cana,  it  is  said  :  "  This  beginning  of 
His  signs  did  Jesus  in  Cana  of  Galilee,  and  manifested  His  glory"— that  is, 
unveiled  His  character.  Is  it  believable  that  the  divine  quality  of  His  life 
thus  manifested  dates  merely  from  the  Baptism  ? 

My  contention  is  that  this  theory  which  dates  the  divine  origin  of  Jesus  at 
the  Baptism  divides  His  life  into  inconsistent  sections  and  undermines  the 
entire  doctrine  of  the  Incarnation  by  giving  us  two  different  persons,  and 
two  different  lives,  one  before  and  one  after  the  Baptism. 2     This  is  altogether 

1  The  variant  reading,  "  This  day  have  I  begotten  thee,"  is  too  obviously  an 
echo  of  Psa.  ii,   7,  to  be  of  any  authority. 

2  "  In  the  evolution  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Incarnation  in  early  Christian  The- 
ology, it  was  made  evident  that  the  union  of  the  preexistent  Son  of  God 
with  humanity  could  not  have  taken  place  at  any  time  after  birth,  whether  at 
the  Baptism,  the  presentation  in  the  temple,  the  birth  itself,  or  at  any  other 
conceivable  time.  It  must  have  been  before  birth  and  in  the  conception 
itself.  .  .  .  The  philosophical  difficulties  which  beset  the  doctrine  of  the  vir- 
gin birth  do  not  concern  the  virgin  birth  in  particular,  but  the  Incarnation  in 
general.     Indeed,  the  doctrine  of  the  virgin  birth  seems  the  only  way  of  over- 


3IO  AUTHOR'S  NOTES 

unsatisfactory.  The  Messiahship  of  Jesus  resides  in  His  person.  The  per- 
son was  made  known  in  the  life.  The  life  must  have  been  one  and  the 
same  throughout.  Whether  one  believes  in  the  statements  of  the  Infancy 
narratives  or  not,  something  akin  to  their  central  affirmation  must  be  pos- 
tulated in  harmony  with  the  rest  of  His  life.  It  is  perfectly  logical  to  deny 
the  miraculous  in  the  life  of  Jesus  as  a  whole,  including  birth,  baptism, 
resurrection,  and  ascension. 

It  is  perfectly  consistent  and  logical  to  say  that  concerning  the  period 
anterior  to  the  Baptism  we  have  no  authentic  information,  and  must  be  con- 
tent with  what  we  know  of  the  mature  life  of  Jesus. 

It  is  consistent  and  logical  to  hold  the  miraculous  birth  as  the  natural  and 
fitting  inauguration  of  the  miraculous  life.  It  is  neither  consistent  nor  logical, 
critical  nor  historical,  to  affirm  an  ordinary  birth  and  childhood  as  constitu- 
ting the  person  of  One  who  carried  forward  a  miraculous  ministry.  This  is 
one  of  the  halfway  positions  with  which  history  deals  so  severely.1 

In  two  ways  the  logical  faculty  has  avenged  itself.  Many  have  been 
driven  to  an  abandonment  of  the  miraculous  altogether,  combining  under 
one  consistent  mythical  or  allegorical  category  all  delineations  of  the  super- 
human Messiah.  Others  have  been  compelled  to  adopt  the  theory  of  a 
miraculous  birth,  though  with  the  subsidiary  agency  of  Joseph,  to  account 
for  the  unique  sanctity  of  Jesus.  This  theory,  which  has  been  referred  to 
several  times  in  the  text,  labors  under  the  double  difficulty  of  affirming  the 

coming  the  chief  difficulties.  If  the  preexistent  Son  of  God  became  incar- 
nate by  ordinary  generation,  we  could  not  escape  the  conclusion  that  a  human 
individual  person  was  begotten.  The  Incarnation  would  then  not  be  a  real  in- 
carnation, but  an  inhabitation  of  Jesus  by  the  Son  of  God,  with  two  distinct  per- 
sonalities, that  of  the  preexistent  Son  of  God,  and  that  of  the  begotten  son  of 
Joseph.  Nestorianism  could  not  be  avoided.  Such  a  merely  external  union 
of  the  divine  Son  with  a  human  individual  could  not  accomplish  human  sal- 
vation, as  the  Christian  Church  has  always  clearly  seen.  If  the  Son  of  God 
only  inhabited  the  man  Jesus,  He  might  save  that  man,  but  how  could  He 
accomplish  the  salvation  of  the  human  race?  Such  an  inhabitation  of  the  Son 
of  God  would  not  differ  in  principle  from  the  indwelling  of  the  divine  Spirit  in 
a  man.  The  man  Jesus  would  be  a  prophet,  a  hero,  a  great  exemplar,  but 
not  the  Saviour  of  mankind.  He  might  be  the  last  and  greatest  of  the  heroes 
of  faith,  but  not  God  incarnate.  Only  a  God-man  who  had  taken  human 
nature  into  organic  union  with  Himself  and  so  identified  Himself  with  the 
human  race  as  to  become  the  common  man,  the  second  Adam,  the  head  of 
the  race,  could  redeem  the  race.  The  doctrine  of  the  virgin  birth  gives  such 
a  God-man.  Natural  generation  could  not  possibly  give  us  such  a  God-man. 
Therefore,  the  doctrine  of  the  virgin  birth  is  essential  to  the  integrity  of  the 
Incarnation,  as  the  Incarnation  is  to  the  doctrine  of  Christ  and  Christian 
salvation."  C.  A.  Briggs,  N.  A.  Review,  June,  1906. 
1  See  Orr,  Chris.  View  of  God  and  the  World,  p.  100. 


AUTHOR'S  NOTES  311 

supernatural  in  Jesus'  birth  while  running  counter  to  the  only  documentary 
evidence  which  we  possess  on  the  subject.  It  really  amounts  to  the  d  priori 
assumption  that  a  miraculous  birth  could  take  place  in  one  way  only.  It 
also  destroys  the  symbolic  value  of  the  event  by  making  it  a  secret  act  of 
God  for  which  there  can  be  no  visible  evidence. 

But  its  real  significance  here  lies  in  the  fact  that  it  constitutes  a  most 
striking  confession  of  weakness.  It  means  that  an  adequate  and  historic 
Christology  which  is  true  to  all  the  facts  cannot  do  without  a  miraculous 
birth.  In  short,  and  this  is  the  gist  of  the  whole  matter,  in  this  controversy 
concerning  the  birth  of  Christ,  two  fundamentally  different  Christologies  are 
grappling  for  supremacy. 

According  to  one,  a  human  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  by  some  process  of  apothe- 
osis, became  the  Messiah  of  Israel  and  the  Saviour  of  the  world.  Accord- 
ing to  the  other  interpretation,  the  Eternal  Son  of  God  became  incarnate  by 
birth  of  the  virgin  ;  by  a  voluntary  self-impoverishment  entered  the  world 
as  a  child  and  lived  as  the  Son  of  man. 

Which  one  of  these  two  interpretations  is  that  of  the  men  of  the  New 
Testament,  there  can  be  no  question. 

Since,  therefore,  the  affirmative  or  negative  position  on  the  subject  of  the 
birth  of  Christ  involves  so  much  of  vital  importance,  the  specific  attack  upon 
the  Infancy  narrative,  apart  from  the  rest  of  the  Gospel,  must  be  pronounced 
a  failure. 


NOTE  B 

THE  ORIGIN  AND  PUBLICATION  OF  THE  INFANCY  NARRATIVES 
A  COMPARATIVE  STUDY 

It  is  the  purpose  of  this  note  to  gather  up  and  combine  the  scattered 
items  of  evidence  as  to  the  origin  and  circulation  of  the  birth  narratives.  Since 
these  narratives  have  been  the  object  of  specific  assault  our  present  task  is 
simply  to  exhibit  their  standing  relative  to  other  documents  of  the  New 
Testament.  As  there  are  many  rival  theories  in  the  field  as  to  the  number, 
character,  and  composition  of  these  documents  it  is  to  be  noted  that  the  con- 
clusions of  this  note  are  not  bound  up  with  any  one  of  these  theories.  It 
is  purely  a  comparative  study.  To  begin  with,  as  has  already  been  stated, 
the  textual  standing  of  the  narratives  is  unimpeachable.  The  attempts 
which  have  been  made  to  disintegrate  the  narratives  or  to  separate  them 
from  the  rest  of  the  Gospels  has  been  a  signal  failure.  In  every  main  state- 
ment they  stand  attested  by  the  best  manuscripts — with  such  unanimity  that 
we  have  a  right  to  affirm  that  in  their  present  form  they  belonged  to  the 
written  Gospels  and  were  circulated  with  them  from  the  beginning. 

In  addition  to  this,  in  style,  point  of  view,  and  literary  purpose  both 
narratives  belong  to  the  Gospels  in  which  they  are  found.  (See  Weiss:  In. 
to  N.  T.,  Eng.  Tr.,  1S89,  vol  ii,  p.  277,  note.)  It  has  been  noted  that  even 
in  the  matter  of  the  Matthean  genealogy  the  author  has  worked  in  accord- 
ance with  the  ruling  ideas  of  the  Gospel  (see  H.  B.  D. ,  vol  iii,  p.  302 
L.     Cf.  also  Weiss  above,  p.  273). * 

In  the  case  of  Luke,  we  note  that  almost  every  conspicuous  feature  of  the 
Gospel  as  a  whole  is  exhibited  in  the  Infancy  section,  (cf.  Simcox,  Writers 
of  N.  T.,  pp.  19-22.  See  Plummer,  Com.  on  Luke,  \  6,  pp.  xvi-lxvii. 
We  are  thus  led  at  once  to  the  position  that  the  Infancy  narratives  have  a 
right  to  share  in  the  confidence  extended  to  the  Gospels  in  which  they  are 
found.  So  far,  there  is  not  the  slightest  ground  for  questioning  their  authority 
or  value. 

Passing  now  to  the  documents  which  are  supposed  to  underlie  the  present 
written  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Luke,  we  seek  an  answer  to  the  question  : 
What  are  the  standing,  characteristics,  and  history  of  the  documents  "underly- 

1  For  a  thorough  study  of  the  unity  of  the  section  see  Machen,  Pr.  Rev., 
Jan.,  1906. 

312 


AUTHOR'S  NOTES  313 

ing  the  narratives  of  the  birth  of  Christ  ?  We  are  met  at  once  with  the  state- 
ment that  the  Infancy  narratives  were  not  contained  in  the  "  Primitive 
Gospel";  i.  e.,  the  common  document  lying  back  of  the  three  Synoptists. 
Weiss  gives  only  one  reason  for  not  placing  the  Infancy  narratives  in  this 
document.  In  the  same  note  referred  to  above,  he  says:  "That  they 
(chaps.  I  and  II)  cannot  indeed  belong  to  the  Apostolic  ground  work  of  the 
Gospel,  since  the  author  evidently  did  not  know  that  the  parents  of  Jesus 
dwelt  originally  in  Nazareth  (ii,  22  ff.),  was  already  perceived  by  Eich- 
horn  and  Bertholdt." 

The  argument  is,  of  course,  that  if  the  author  of  the  section  had  access 
to  a  primitive  document  of  the  Infancy  he  would  have  known  (on  the  sup- 
position that  the  document  embraced  the  facts  stated  both  by  Matthew  and 
Luke)  that  the  family  of  Joseph  had  lived  formerly  at  Nazareth  and  returned 
to  their  old  home  after  the  birth  of  Jesus  at  Bethlehem. 

The  argument  is  far  from  convincing.  As  has  already  been  pointed  out, 
what  Matthew  says  about  the  cause  for  the  return  to  Nazareth  is  in  no 
possible  contradiction  with  a  former  residence  in  Galilee.  The  account 
does  not  say  that  Joseph  did  not  formerly  reside  in  Nazareth.  It  does 
imply,  of  course,  that  he  did  not  return  to  Nazareth  on  account  of  that 
former  residence. 

It  does  not  come  within  the  scope  of  his  narrative  to  mention  that  former 
residence.  Indeed  there  is  reason  to  suppose  that  the  evangelist  would 
have  preferred  to  omit  reference  to  that  fact  if  he  could.  Why  it  should  be 
inferred  that  he  did  not  know  about  it,  I  fail  utterly  to  see.  The  writer  is 
interested  in  the  train  of  causes  which  brought  about  the  permanent  residence 
of  Jesus  in  Nazareth,  and  made  Him  known  to  His  contemporaries  as  a 
Nazarene.  All  the  conditions  of  Matthew's  narrative  would  be  abundantly 
fulfilled  if  an  intention  on  the  part  of  Joseph  to  settle  at  Bethlehem  upon 
his  return  from  Egypt  was  thwarted  by  the  warning  which  sent  him  to 
Nazareth.  This  argument  of  Weiss  is  not  sufficient  to  cut  off  the  Infancy 
narrative  from  the  Primitive  Gospel. 

Another  reason  has  been  urged  in  favor  of  this  idea  which  has  far  greater 
cogency.  It  is  said  (by  Wilkinson :  Early  Hist.  Gospels,  Mac,  p.  14):  "The 
narrative  of  our  Lord's  birth  would  for  obvious  reasons  be  kept  secret,  and 
the  evidence  seems  to  show  that  it  had  no  place  in  the  Logia."  The 
earlier  part  of  this  we  shall  consider  more  closely  a  little  later.  For  the 
present,  let  us  take  for  granted  that  the  statement  concerning  the  absence  of 
the  Infancy  narrative  from  the  primitive  source  is  true.  This  being  granted  the 
question  arises  :  What  was  the  nature  of  this  document,  and  what  did  it  con- 
tain ?  It  is  of  course  impossible  to  be  perfectly  certain  as  to  the  contents  of 
a  document  which  we  have  never  seen  except  in  combination  with  other 
documents,  but  by  general  consent  we  may  safely  consider  certain  conclu- 
sions as  reasonably  assured.     The  Primitive  Gospel  (to  take  Dr.  B.  Weiss's 


314  AUTHOR'S  NOTES 

interpretation  of  it)  consisted  of  a  loosely  connected  series  of  apostolic 
memorabilia,  beginning  with  the  baptism  of  John  and  ending  with  the 
word  of  Jesus  concerning  the  woman  who  anointed  Him  in  the  house  of 
Simon  the  Leper.  This  document  was  drawn  up,  perhaps,  by  Matthew  to 
serve  as  an  aid  to  memory,  and  perhaps  as  a  manual  of  catechetical 
instruction.  The  probability  seems  to  be  that  it  was  written  in  Aramaic 
and  circulated  from  Jerusalem  sometime  in  the  sixties  of  the  first  century  (see 
Jolley,  Synoptic  Problem,  Macmillan,  1893,  for  a  convenient  summary  of 
the  subject.  Jolley  bases  his  work  on  Weiss  and  gives  a  restoration  of  the 
P.  G.     Cf.  Weiss,  In.  N.  T.,  vol.  ii,  p.  227). 

This  document  is  supposed  to  be  a  common  source  from  which  all  three 
Synoptic  Gospels  are  in  part  drawn.  It  is  to  be  noted  here  with  distinct 
emphasis  that  this  document  did  not  contain  any  account  of  the  birth,  the 
death,  or  the  resurrection  of  Jesus.  The  purpose  of  the  document  was  to 
furnish  inquiring  Jews  with  evidence  of  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus.  The 
aim  was  didactic  and  not  biographical.  The  absence  of  any  account  of  the 
passion  and  resurrection  is  accounted  for  by  the  fact  that  such  an  omission 
"  is  natural  enough  in  a  writing  primarily  intended  for  the  Christians  of 
Judrea,  some  of  them  witnesses  of  the  Crucifixion,  and  all,  probably,  familiar 
with  the  incident  of  the  Saviour's  Judrean  ministry,  as  well  as  with  the 
events  immediately  preceding  and  following  the  Passion,  especially  when 
we  remember  that  the  author  had  no  intention  of  writing  a  biography."1 

The  total  disappearance  of  this  primitive  Gospel  as  a  separate  document 
is  accounted  for  on  the  ground  that  a  Gospel  which  contained  no  account 
of  the  birth,  death,  or  resurrection  of  the  Saviour  would  possess  little 
interest  for  later  generations  of  Christians  (Jolley,  Ibid,  p.  89).  So  far, 
then,  the  narratives  of  the  Infancy  stand  upon  precisely  the  same  ground  as 
the  narratives  of  the  Passion  and  Resurrection.  Both  are  lacking  and 
apparently  much  for  the  same  reason  (?'.  e.,  being  aside  from  the  purpose  of 
the  document)  from  the  Primitive  Gospel. 

Jolley  is  the  advocate  of  an  elaborate  documentary  theory  of  the  origin  of 
the  Synoptic  Gospels.  He  assigns  the  entire  life  of  Chirst  to  various 
sources,  traditional  information  obtained  by  the  author  himself,  Mark's 
Gospel,  the  Primitive  Gospel  and  the  lost  Ebionite  Gospel.  Jolley  says : 
"  Such  a  scheme  can  at  best  be  only  approximately  accurate,  for  the  authors, 
though  often  copying  from,  have  usually  modified  the  passages  based  in 
their  written  sources,  and  have  at  times  so  combined  their  written  sources 
both  with  one  another  and  with  independent  and,  as  it  would  seem,  not 
always  trustworthy  tradition,  as  to  render  a  perfect  analysis  impossible 
(p.  114) ."  Had  he  added  that  a  perfect  analysis  is  unattainable  also  because 
occasionally  the  critic's  acumen  fails,  the  above  statement  would  have  been 
the  gainer  both  in  truth  and  modesty. 

1  Jolley,  Syn.  Prob.,  p.  74. 


AUTHOR'S  NOTES  315 

Taking  as  a  working  basis,  Jolley's  Analysis,  our  present  task  is  to  ascertain 
the  relative  authority  of  the  passages  with  which  he  classes  the  Infancy  sec- 
tions. Be  it  said  at  once  that  Luke's  narrative  (Lk.  ii,  3-52)  he  assigns 
to  the  "  lost  "  Ebionite  Gospel  which  he  defines  as  a  document  "  written  for 
Jewish-Christian  readers,  and  presented  traces  of  those  doctrines  which  at  a 
later  time  and  in  a  more  developed  form  were  called  Ebionite."  This 
document  he  takes  to  be  the  primitive  precursor  of  the  second  century 
Apocryphal  Gospel  of  the  Hebrews.  It  will  thus  be  seen  that  Luke's  narra- 
tive goes  back  to  a  primitive  Hebrew-Christian  document. 

Matthew's  narrative  is  classed  with  passages  due  to  the  evangelist,  and 
gathered  from  traditional  sources.  These  passages  aggregate  three  hun- 
dred and  thirty-six  verses,  nearly  one  ninth  of  the  entire  Synoptic  material. 
Making  an  analysis  of  these  we  find  (1)  that  in  many  instances  the  assign- 
ment to  a  separate  source  cannot  be  allowed  to  stand.  It  destroys  the  sense, 
breaks  up  the  connection,  and  leaves  both  the  passage  removed  and  the  con- 
text without  meaning.  In  order  to  test  the  validity  of  this  criticism  let  the 
reader  examine  Jolley's  analysis  of  the  fifth  chapter:  Verses  1  and  2  are 
assigned  to  tradition  ;  3-9  to  the  Primitive  Gospel  ;  10  to  tradition;  11-22 
to  P.  G.;  23,  24 to  tradition;  25-28  to  P.  G. ;  29,  30  to  tradition;  31-40 
to  P.  G.;  41   to  tradition;  42-48  to  P.  G. 

Of  these  I  and  2  are  introductory  and  practically  paralleled  in  Mark  iii, 
13,  but  may  be  allowed  to  stand  as  the  evangelist's  own  note  ;  verses  3-9 
are  assigned  to  the  Primitive  Gospel  while  10  goes  to  tradition  and  11-22 
to  P.  G.  But  verses  11-22  carry  out  the  same  idea  as  10,  and  the  state- 
ments are  paralleled  in  Luke  vi,  20-23,  which  the  author  assigns  to  the 
Primitive  Gospel.  It  would  not  be  unallowable  to  assign  even  disconnected 
sentences  in  such  aphoristic  speech  as  this  sermon  to  different  documents 
on  the  ground  of  the  lack  of  immediate  connection,  but  here  he  has  separated 
closely  connected  sentences.  Take  another  instance.  Verses  23  and  24 
are  cut  off  from  what  precedes  and  what  follows,  but  verses  22  and  23  are 
grammatically  connected,  and  verse  25  is  logically  connected  with  24.  Cer- 
tainly, whatever  may  be  done  with  the  rest  of  the  verses,  24  and  25  ought 
not  to  be  separated.  Again,  verses  25  to  28  are  assigned  to  the  Primitive 
Gospel,  while  29  and  30,  connected  closely  in  thought  with  28,  are  assigned 
to  tradition.  In  addition  to  this  verse  25  and  26  join  closely  with  23  and 
24,  and  are  totally  different  in  theme  from  the  passage  27f.  Verse  41  is 
thrust  in  between  two  passages  (31-40,  and  42-48).  It  would  be  perfectly 
safe  to  challenge  any  one  to  exhibit  any  dislocation  of  thought  between 
verses  40  and  41,  and  between  41  and  42f,  such  as  for  example  is  clearly 
apparent  between  verses  37  and  38.  Now  it  is  not  affirmed  that  these 
verses  do  not  come  from  separate  sources,  but  attention  is  called  to  the  fact 
that  the  assignment  is  open  to  objection  at  every  step.  A  careful  study  of 
Jolley's  whole  scheme  is  enough  to  convince  any  one  that  the  assignment 


316  AUTHOR'S  NOTES 

to  various  documents  is  an  exceedingly  difficult  and  precarious  undertaking 
(cf.  Mark  iii,  13-17;  iv,  12-16  with  Jolley's  scheme,  p.  114).  (2)  In 
many  instances  the  passages  are  paralleled  in  Mark's  Gospel  as  well  as  in 
Luke's.  In  some  instances  the  wording  is  slightly  changed  while  the  idea 
is  evidently  derived  from  the  common  source.  Cf.  Matt,  iv,  23-25  with 
Mark  i,  39  ;  Matt,  viii,  17  with  Mark  i,  32ff ;  Matt,  ix,  36  with  Mark  vi, 
34;  Matt,  x,  17,  18  with  Mark  xiii,  9;  Matt,  x,  39  with  Mark  viii,  35  ; 
Matt,  xii,  31-37  with  Mark  iii,  22  in  connection  with  Jolley's  scheme.  (3) 
Most  of  the  passages  placed  by  Jolley  in  the  class  with  the  Infancy  narra- 
tive are  self-authenticated  by  peculiarities  of  thought  and  style  as  belong- 
ing to  the  genuine  Gospel.  See  Matt,  v,  25-28  ;  ibid  41  ;  vi,  1-6  ;  xvi, 
17-19;  xviii,  16-22;  xx,  1-19  ;  xxi,  28-32;  xxiii,  1-3.  Concerning  the 
teachings  and  incidents  recorded  in  these  passages  there  is  very  little  ques- 
tion as  to  their  validity  and  authority. 

While  we  are  upon  this  subject  it  might  be  well  to  compare  with  the  In- 
fancy narratives  two  really  suspicious  passages,  the  authenticity  of  which 
has  been  seriously  questioned.  One  of  these  is  the  ending  of  the  Gospel 
of  Mark  (xvi,  9-20),  the  other  the  account  of  the  woman  taken  in  adultery 
and  brought  to  Jesus  (Jno.  viii,  1-11).  As  to  the  former,  it  is  well  known 
that  there  are  two  endings  to  the  Gospel  of  Mark.  The  longer  ending  is 
found  in  the  regular  versions — a  shorter  ending  at  the  eighth  verse  in 
many  manuscripts.  The  external  evidence  is  divided — the  preponderance 
of  authority  being  against  the  passage.  The  internal  evidence  is  also 
rather  unfavorable.  It  does  not  seem  to  fit  the  rest  of  Mark's  Gospel. 
As  Dr.  Hort  put  it :  "  It  is  a  condensed  fifth  narrative  of  the  Forty  Days."  1 
Nevertheless,  it  is  quite  impossible  to  throw  this  section  out  altogether. 

As  Jolley  says  (Syn.  Prob.,  p.  1 1 2)  "  There  is,  however,  a  small  but  by 
no  means  insignificant  minority  who  maintain  that  they  are  an  integral  part 
of  the  Gospel  ;  whether  spurious  or  not  the  disputed  verses  are  very 
ancient.  If  not  genuine,  they  must  have  been  added  early  in  the  second 
century,  for  they  were  certainly  known  to  Irenaeus  and  probably  to  Justin 
Martyr." 

Contrast  with  this  the  standing  of  the  Infancy  narratives  with  textual 
authority  unanimously  favorable  and  with  a  manifest  history  that  puts  them 
well  within  the  first  century. 

The  other  disputed  passage  is  of  a  different  kind.  John  viii,  1-11  is, 
textually  speaking,  a  floating  passage.  The  place  and  order  of  this  incident 
present  an  unsolvable  enigma.  It  is  sometimes  placed  in  the  eighth  chapter, 
sometimes  at  the  end  of  the  Gospel,  and  sometimes  in  Luke's  narrative.  It 
is  evidently  a  fugitive  piece.  It  is  missing  from  some  of  the  best  manu- 
scripts and  ancient  versions  and  was  looked  upon  as  suspicious  from  a  very 

^ee  H.B.  £>.,  vol.  iii,  pp.  2Sif  Art.  Gos.  of,  Mark. 


AUTHOR'S  NOTES  317 

eaply  day.  There  are  arguments  on  the  other  side,  of  course  (see  Farrar  L. 
C,  vol.  ii,  p.  61,  note),  and  it  will  always  remain  a  problem. 

Against  the  authenticity  of  the  passage  as  a  part  of  John's  Gospel,  Eders- 
heim  (L.  and  T.  J.  M.,  vol.  ii,  p.  163,  note)  presents  an  argument  which 
would  seem  to  destroy  the  authority  of  the  incident  altogether  as  a  part  of 
the  authentic  Gospel.  He  says:  "That  a  woman  taken  in  the  act  of 
adultery  should  have  been  brought  before  Jesus  (and  apparently  without  the 
witnesses  to  her  crime)  ;  that  such  an  utterly  unjewish,  as  well  as  illegal 
procedure  should  have  been  that  of  the  '  Scribes  and  Pharisees ' ;  that  such 
a  breach  of  law,  and  of  what  Judaism  would  regard  as  decency,  should 
have  been  perpetrated  to  'tempt'  Him,  or  that  the  scribes  should  have 
been  so  ignorant  as  to  substitute  stoning  for  strangulation  as  the  punish- 
ment for  adultery  ;  lastly,  that  this  scene  should  have  been  enacted  in  the 
temple,  presents  a  very  climax  of  impossibilities."  Nevertheless,  in  spite 
of  all  these  undoubtedly  serious  objections  the  passage  in  question  has  al- 
ways held  its  own,  and  will  probably  continue  to  hold  its  own  as  a  part] of 
the  Gospel  narrative,  for  this  simple  reason.  It  presents  a  perfectly  inimi- 
table picture  of  the  character  and  attitude  of  Christ.  It  may  be  that  John 
did  not  write  it ;  it  may  be  that  in  some  measure  the  narrative  has  become 
confused  and  distorted,  yet  that  it  presents  an  authentic  revelation  of  the 
Lord,  the  vast  majority  of  people  will  continue  to  believe. 

Once  more,  making  comparison,  we  see  how  strong  and  unassailable  is 
the  standing  of  the  Infancy  narrative.  If  the  story  of  the  woman  can 
authenticate  itself  against  such  objections,  external  and  internal,  how  much 
more  firm  is  the  position  of  the  Infancy  narratives  against  which  no  such 
arguments  can  be  drawn. 

Jolley's  scheme  represents  one  method  of  solving  the  Synoptic  prob- 
lem. We  have  found  a  place  for  the  Infancy  narrative  among  the 
documents  attributed  to  tradition,  the  vast  majority  of  which  are  per- 
fectly well  authenticated  portions  of  the  narrative.  In  order  to  reach 
some  more  definite  conclusions,  we  shall  next  review  briefly  a  totally 
different  method  of  accounting  for  the  three  Gospels.  Dr.  Arthur  Wright 
lays  far  greater  emphasis  upon  oral  teaching  as  a  mode  of  preserving  and 
transmitting  the  Gospel  tradition.  In  our  judgment  his  work  (Com.  of  Four 
Gospels,  Macmillan,  1S90)  is  nearer  a  correct  representation  Of  the  actual 
facts  than  Jolley's. 

As  to  the  difference  between  the  two  theories  on  the  subject  of  docu- 
mentary and  oral  tradition,  Plummer  rightly  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that 
"  the  difference  between  oral  tradition  and  a  document  is  not  great  when 
the  oral  tradition  has  become  stereotyped  by  frequent  repetition."  * 

Nevertheless,  the  fact  that  much  of  the  Gospel  teaching  was  given  for 

1  Plummer,  Com.  on  Luke,  §  3,  p.  xxiii. 


318  AUTHOR'S  NOTES 

some  time  in  the  form  of  oral  memory  lessons,  must  be  given  due  weight  in 
accounting  for  the  written  Gospels. 

In  brief  outline  Wright's  theory  is  as  follows:  Mark  was  a  catechist 
who  wrote  down,  after  Peter's  death,  the  memoirs  which  he  had  been 
teaching.  After  the  separation  of  Paul  and  Barnabas,  the  latter  with  Mark 
sailed  to  Cyprus  where  they  lived  and  taught  in  retirement.  They  were 
thus  out  of  the  reach  of  all  later  developments  of  doctrine.  Peter's  memoirs 
were  practically  the  sum  of  Mark's  knowledge  and  teaching. 

As  Mark  was  the  instructor  of  the  Greek  catechists,  the  author  of  the 
First  Gospel  and  Luke  must  have  been  his  pupils.  Mark's  arrangement 
of  the  memoirs  was  symmetrical  rather  than  chronological. 

The  bulk  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels  consists  of  three  cycles  of  oral  narra- 
tives :  (l)  Peter's  Memoirs,  (2)  Matthew's  Utterances  of  the  Lord,  and  (3) 
Anonymous  Gospel  current  only  in  Gentile  churches,  which  ultimately 
came  to  be  written.  Now  passing  over  all  details  we  come  at  once  to  the 
question  which  is  vital  to  our  present  inquiry — where  do  the  Infancy  narra- 
tives come  in,  and  what  is  their  standing? 

Wright  classes  Matthew's  Infancy  narrative  (in  its  present  form),  which 
he  says  may  have  been  added  to  the  tradition  by  Matthew  himself  or  under 
his  direction,  with  certain  fragments  of  oral  gospel  outside  the  cycles. 
Of  these  fragments  in  general  and  especially  those  concerned  with  post- 
resurrection  incidents,  he  says  :  "  There  is  nothing  in  the  nature  of  things 
to  prevent  these  fragments  from  possessing  the  highest  historical  value. 
Abundance  of  eyewitnesses  must  have  existed  in  Jerusalem,  who  were 
ready  and  anxious  to  tell  what  they  knew  about  the  events  of  Holy  Week. 
And  it  would  be  wanton  incredulity  to  reject  what  they  say.  But  still  the 
obscurity  of  the  origin  of  these  fragments  and  the  late  date  at  which  they 
were  probably  added  to  the  tradition  lead  us  to  put  them  upon  a  lower 
historical  level  than  the  Petrine  memoirs."  l 

It  will  be  seen  that,  while  he  classes  the  narrative  of  the  first  Gospel 
with  these  fragments,  he  does  not  put  them  on  the  same  historical  level. 

Prof.  Wright  denominates  Luke's  narrative  of  the  Infancy  as  "  non-oral  " 
— that  is  to  say  that  it  is  based  upon  documentary  sources.  He  holds 
that  Luke's  first  two  chapters  read  like  a  direct  translation  from  the  Ara- 
maic. He  says:  "They  are  far  more  Aramaic  in  form  than  even  St. 
Mark's  Gospel.  The  reason  of  this  we  take  to  be  the  simple  fact  that  they 
never  were  in  the  hands  of  Greek  catechists,  who  inevitably  and  uncon- 
sciously Hellenized  what  they  taught."2  He  also  says  of  the  Infancy 
chapters  that  we  can  pretty  confidently  affirm  that  they  were  never  in  the 
hands  of  the  catechists,  at  least  in  their  present  Greek  dress."  3  Of  the 
Infancy  narratives  in  the  first  Gospel,  he  says:  "They  certainly  were 
taught  orally,  as  is  shown  by  the  suitable  length  of  the  sections,  by  the 
1  Page  102.  2  Page  145.  3  Page  112. 


AUTHOR'S  NOTES  319 

division  of  the  genealogy  into  three  parts  arranged  into  decatesserads  to 
assist  the  pupil's  memory,  and  above  all  by  the  fact  that  they  were  present 
in  the  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews  as  well  as  in  our  first  Gospel."  l 

At  this  point  a  strikingly  interesting  fact  emerges.  According  to  Jolley, 
Luke's  Infancy  narrative  goes  back  to  the  Ebionite  Gospel  (see  Syn.  Prob., 
Appendix  D,  p.  115). 

According  to  Wright  (see  also  Wilkinson  Hist.  Gospels,  p.  22 — with  this 
also  arguments  of  Prof.  Chase  agree)  the  Infancy  narrative  was  contained  in 
the  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews.  In  the  nomenclature  of  the  two  books, 
these  documents  are  practically  the  same.  The  Ebionite  Gospel  (according 
to  Jolley)  was  the  predecessor  of  the  second  century  Gospel  of  the  Hebrews. 
In  the  particular  of  the  Lord's  birth  they  were  the  same.  If  these  con- 
clusions are  correct,  we  have  traced  the  twofold  narrative  back  into  a  com- 
mon document  lying  behind  the  present  Gospels,  which  incorporated  them 
both.  Prof.  Wright  thus  summarizes  the  whole  question  as  to  the  origin  of 
these  narratives :  "It  is  important  to  observe  that  though  St.  Luke's 
account  of  the  mystery  of  the  Incarnation  (the  Lord's  birth)  is  entirely 
distinct  from  that  in  the  first  Gospel  and  has  no  reference  either  direct  or 
implied  to  Isaiah's  prophecy,  yet  both  evangelists  attest  the  same  fact.  The 
Incarnation,  like  the  Crucifixion  and  Resurrection,  presents  one  of  the  very 
few  cases  in  the  Gospels,  in  which  we  really  have  the  testimony  of  two 
men.  Nay,  more,  its  presence  in  the  first  Gospel  declares  it  to  have  been 
accepted  in  the  East ;  its  presence  in  St.  Luke  proves  its  acceptance  in  the 
West.  The  fact  itself  transcends  human  experience  and  must  always 
remain  a  matter  of  faith.  Still  to  admit  it  is  easier  than  to  deny  it,  for  with- 
out it  the  very  existence  of  the  Gospels  and  of  Christianity  is  inexplicable. 
St.  Peter's  memoirs  imply  quite  as  much  as  St.  John's  Gospel  records,  'that 
the  word  became  flesh  and  dwelt  among  us.'  " 

The  judgment  of  any  New  Testament  passage  as  to  its  integrity  with 
references  to  the  document  in  which  it  is  found  and  its  authenticity  as  coming 
from  an  alleged  author  should  be  conducted  with  regard  to  three  cardinal 
facts : — 

1.  Its  bulk  and  importance. 

2.  Its  relationship  to  other  facts  of  Christ' s  life. 

3.  The  opportunities  of  its  authors  or  editors  to  gain  access  to  reliable 
sources  of  information. 

It  is  self-evident  that  the  larger  sections  of  the  New  Testament,  impor- 
tant actions  and  episodes  of  the  narrative,  the  story  of  a  great  miracle  or 
parable,  an  extensive  passage  of  the  teaching  are  much  less  likely  to  gain 
unauthorized  entrance  into  the  tradition  than  minor  passages  and  details.  A 
verse  is  more  easily  added  than  a  chapter,  a  chapter  than  a  book,  a  detail 
of  description  than  a  connected  narrative.     In  general  it  may  be  said  that 

1  Page  113. 


320  AUTHOR'S  NOTES 

the  scrutiny  of  the  authors  or  editors  of  the  Gospel  narrative  was  directly 
proportioned  to  the  importance  of  the  passage  under  consideration.  As  a 
matter  of  unquestionable  fact,  modifications  which  the  evangelic  tradition 
has  undergone  in  the  process  of  teaching  and  recording  it  consist  largely  in 
the  addition  or  subtraction  of  details.  A  careful  study  of  the  variations  of 
the  various  strata  of  the  evangelic  narrative  will  show  that  most  of  them 
are  small,  verbal  changes  in  details.  It  seems  to  me  utterly  impossible  that 
the  entire  nexus  of  events  contained  in  the  twofold  Infancy  narrative 
should  have  been  an  accretion.  A  part  of  it  might  have  been  a  mythological 
addition,  but  that  so  vital  a  subject  as  the  birth  and  early  life  of  the 
Redeemer  should  have  been  left  to  the  careless  and  haphazard  gathering 
together  of  loose,  unauthorized  mythological  fragments  is  altogether  too 
large  an  assumption.  It  is  inherently  improbable,  and  fails  utterly  of  any 
reasonable  degree  of  demonstration. 

The  second  testing  principle  is  the  relationship — the  harmony  or  dis- 
harmony of  the  questioned  passage  with  the  remainder  of  the  Gospel,  and 
with  the  nature  of  the  facts  dealt  with.  Dr.  Edersheim's  argument  against 
John  viii,  I-ii  proceeds  on  this  basis.  No  one  has  successfully  maintained 
any  incongruity  between  the  Infancy  narratives  and  the  rest  of  the  narrative. 
We  have  dealt  with  this  question  at  length  and  need  not  return  to  the  sub- 
ject. 

This  leaves  us  at  liberty  to  turn  directly  to  that  aspect  of  the  question 
which  more  immediately  concerns  our  present  inquiry — the  opportunities 
of  the  authors  to  gain  reliable  information  on  the  subject.  This  is  really 
from  the  viewpoint  of  evidence,  the  crucial  question. 

According  to  Jolley  (Syn.  Prob.,  pp.  105,  6),  Luke's  narrative  of  the 
Infancy  was  taken  from  the  Ebionite  Gospel.  This  narrative  he  holds  to 
have  been  the  work  of  a  Jewish-Christian  writer,  who  was  himself  in  pos- 
session of  the  primitive  Gospel.  We  have  then  for  all  the  essentials  of 
Luke's  narrative  a  documentary  basis  going  well  back  into  the  Apostolic 
Age.  Now  Luke  claims  (in  the  prologue  to  the  Gospel  i,  1-5)  for  his 
narrative  in  general,  and  especially  for  the  additions  which  he  makes  to  the 
commonly  received  narrative,  the  authority  of  the  eyewitnesses.  In  the 
case  of  the  Infancy  narrative,  the  eyewitnesses  could  mean  one  group  of 
individuals  only  ;  i.  e.,  the  immediate  family  of  Jesus.  The  alternative  to 
this  origin  for  the  narrative  must  be  very  sharply  drawn.  The  stories  must 
be  either  very  close  to  the  fountain-head  of  authority  or  very  far  away.  It 
is  altogether  improbable,  that  any  one  would  venture  to  write  a  fictitious  nar- 
rative involving  the  private  history  of  a  prominent  family  while  members  of 
it  were  still  living  and  known — certainly  not  without  prompt  and  public 
rebuke.  If  the  narrative  is  apocryphal  and  legendary,  it  must  have  come 
into  existence  at  a  very  late  date,  after  the  family  had  ceased  to  exist  or  be 
known.    We  are  logically  compelled  to  put  the  account  late  enough  for  the 


AUTHOR'S  NOTES  32 1 

immediate  family  of  Jesus  to  have  disappeared  from  among  the  brethren, 
and  for  the  early  life  of  Jesus,  and  even  the  family  traditions  to  have  become 
hopelessly  obscured.  The  very  fact  that  the  narrative  is  Lucan,  is  evidence 
enough  that  this  supposition  cannot  possibly  be  true.  In  addition  to  the 
undersigned  and  most  significant  internal  evidences  of  direct  authority,  we 
have  convincing  external  proof  that  Luke  actually  came  into  contact  with 
the  very  persons  who  were  in  a  position  to  know  the  facts. 

In  the  year  5S  (on  the  evidence  of  Acts  xxi,  17  ff.)  we  are  assured  that 
Luke  went  with  Paul  to  Jerusalem  and  then  made  the  acquaintance  of 
James,  the  Lord's  brother  who  was  the  head  of  that  church.  I  hold  it  to 
be  absolutely  incredible  that  one  who  was  thus  brought  into  intimate  fel- 
lowship with  a  Jewish-Christian  group  at  Jerusalem,  of  whom  a  blood-rel- 
ative of  Jesus  was  a  prominent  member,  would  have  accepted  any  impor- 
tant item  concerning  His  life  without  confirmation  from  the  lips  of  James, 
and  I  am  equally  certain  that  such  a  statement  on  the  part  of  Luke  would 
never  have  been  tolerated  by  the  Church  had  he  been  willing  to  offer  it. 

The  chain  of  arguments  is  complete.  On  the  one  hand,  the  responsi- 
bility of  Luke  for  the  Infancy  section  is  beyond  question  ;  on  the  other,  his 
acquaintance  with  the  family  of  the  Lord  is  fairly  beyond  successful  con- 
tradiction. Every  item  of  available  evidence,  therefore,  points  to  approxi- 
mately first-hand  narration. 

Dr.  Sanday1  and  Prof.  Ramsay2  differ  slightly  as  to  nearness  of  Luke's 
narration  to  the  original  story.  Both  recognize  the  presence  of  first-hand 
elements,  and  also  literary  modification  in  the  story — the  only  question  is 
as  to  the  number  of  intermediaries.  We  have  only  to  imagine  that  the 
story  told  by  Mary  had  been  put  into  an  Aramaic  narrative  with  the  outline 
of  events,  the  messages  and  the  songs,  to  satisfy  all  the  conditions  of  the 
problem.  How  much  Luke  worked  over  his  materials  it  is,  of  course, 
impossible  to  say.  There  are  characteristic  Lucan  expressions,  together 
with  undoubted  Aramaic  reminiscences,  in  almost  the  same  sentence.  It 
is  not  necessary  to  suppose  more  than  one  document  between  Luke's 
finished  narrative,  and  Mary's  artless  story. 

At  this  point,  let  me  call  attention  to  another  contrast.  Among  the 
fragments  of  oral  Gospel  outside  the  cycles  with  which  Prof.  Wright  classes, 
for  convenience's  sake,  the  Infancy  narrative  of  the  first  Gospel,  occurs  one 
incident,  to  the  unreliability  of  which  he  calls  attention.  In  Acts  i,  1 8,  19, 
Luke  gives  us  an  account  of  the  way  in  which  the  field  which  was  con- 
nected with  the  tragedy  of  Judas  gained  its  name.  This  narrative  seems 
to  be  in  fatal  collision  with  Matthew's  account  of  the  same  thing.  (See 
Matt,  xxvii,  5-8.)  Ramsay  (St.  Paul,  p.  368)  has  "  no  hesitation  in  accept- 
ing the  vivid  and  detailed  description  which  Matthew  gives  of  this  incident." 

Conceding  the  contradiction,  we  can  see  at  once — (1)  that  there  existed 

1  H.  B.  D.,  vol.  ii,  644.  2  Was  Christ  Bom  at  Beth.?    Chap.  iv. 

21 


322  AUTHOR'S  NOTES 

in  connection  with  the  catastrophe  of  Judas,  which  occurred  during  the 
most  confused  period  of  the  disciples'  entire  experience  and  was  in  itself  a 
thing  of  horror  unsafe  to  inquire  very  much  about,  no  considerable  opportunity 
to  obtain  reliable  information  5(2)  that  in  spite  of  the  contradiction  there  is 
a  certain  residuum  of  historic  fact.  There  was  undeniably  a  tragedy  con- 
nected with  Judas,  and  in  some  way  a  parcel  of  ground  had  become  associ- 
ated with  that  tragedy.  In  striking  contrast  with  this,  is  the  evident  care- 
fulness of  the  Infancy  narrative  of  Luke,  and  the  historic  proofs  of  his  close- 
ness to  the  sources  of  authority. 

Descending  now  to  details,  it  is  necessary  to  exhibit  some  of  the  reasons 
for  the  opinions  heretofore  expressed  concerning  Luke's  narrative. 

The  expression  "Holy  Spirit"  is  used  by  Luke  fifty-three  times,  twelve 
times  in  the  Gospel,  six  times  in  the  Infancy  section.  (Luke  i,  15,  35,  67  ; 
ii,  25,  26,  27.) 

In  the  Infancy  narrative  the  word  nvev/na  is  used  without  the  article, 
except  in  the  26th  and  27th  verses.  In  the  15th  verse  this  omission  is  due 
to  the  influence  of  "an  Aramaic  origin  in  which  the  genitive  which  follows 
would  justify  the  omission."  The  other  instances  are  due,  according  to 
Plummer,  to  the  fact  that  the  Spirit  is  regarded  impersonally  as  the  creative 
power  of  God.1  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  the  exceptions  to  this  usage 
are  in  verses  26  and  27 — the  reference  is  manifestly  to  the  Spirit  as  a  Per- 
son, and  to  His  influence  as  a  personal  influence.  In  verse  25,  the  order  of 
the  words  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that  Trvev/na  refers  to  the  spirit  abstractly 
as  a  mood  or  influence.  Plummer  calls  it  "prophetic  impulse."  This 
usage  throughout  is  strictly  Hebraic.  We  are  on  the  border  line  of  trans- 
ition from  the  Old  Testament  view  of  the  Holy  Spirit  as  "  the  power  of  God 
in  action,"  to  the  New  Testament  idea  of  Him  as  a  Divine  Person.  The 
former  conception  was  in  the  original  documents  of  the  Infancy — the  latter 
was  Luke's  own  conception.  That  Luke  had  in  mind  the  two  usages  is 
evident  from  the  transition  in  verses  26  and  27.  Since  we  find  the  same 
usage  in  Matthew,  Swete  (H.  B.  D.,  vol.  ii,  p.  405)  is  fully  justified  when 
he  says  :  "  Both  contexts  are  conceived  in  the  Spirit  of  the  Old  Testament, 
and  belong  to  the  earliest  age  of  Christianity,  when  the  fullest  teaching  of 
the  Gospel  had  not  yet  been  assimilated." 

In  the  nth  verse  of  chapter  ii,  we  have  an  expression  which,  so  far  as 
the  form  of  words  is  concerned,  is  thoroughly  Lucan  and  probably  Pauline. 
But  we  find  the  familiar  thought  which  was  the  center  of  the  apostolic 
teaching  from  the  earliest  time  (the  very  word  cutt/p  being  used  by  Peter 
in  his  great  sermon,  Acts  v,  31)  in  a  strange  and  unfamiliar  environment. 
There  is  no  hint  of  sacrifice  or  substitution  in  the  work  of  the  newborn 
Redeemer.  The  words  translated  in  harmony  with  the  context  show  the 
meaning  of  the  phrase  :  "  There  is  born  to  you  this  day,  a  Deliverer,  who 
1  Plummer,  Com.  on  Luke,  ad.  loc. 


AUTHOR'S  NOTES  323 

is  Anointed  Lord,  in  the  city  of  David."  The  absence  of  the  article  seems 
to  indicate  that  xpiordg  is  used  as  an  adjective — at  any  rate,  it  is  used  in 
the  appellative  sense,  and  not  as  a  proper  name.  When  the  phrase,  "  In 
the  city  of  David,"  is  added  it  becomes  perfectly  clear  that  we  are  still  in 
the  region  of  pre-Christian  Messianic  ideas. 

If  it  be  true  that  Luke  supplied  the  words  ourr/p  and  nvpiog  (of  which  we 
cannot  be  at  all  certain,  see  Plummer,  Com.  on  Luke,  ad.  loc.) — words  which 
in  other  parts  of  the  New  Testament  are  fraught  with  the  deepest  meaning 
by  reason  of  the  Cross  and  the  open  grave,  he  has  refrained  from  adding 
to  them  the  least  hint  of  the  later  richness  of  meaning.  The  angels  simply  tell 
the  shepherds  that  the  long  expected  Deliverer  has  come — that  the  King  of 
the  line  of  David  has  been  born  in  the  city  of  David,  according  to  the  promise. 

The  expression  x(>ia~°S  Kvpcog  is  unique  in  the  New  Testament,  and  very 
possibly  may  have  been  a  pre-Christian  Messianic  formula  (see  Plummer, 
ibid.). 

Next,  attention  should  be  called  to  the  fact  emphasized  both  by  Plum- 
mer1 and  Briggs2  that  the  manifestation  of  God  to  Mary  is  described  under 
the  ancient  form  of  theophany.  So  far,  we  are  in  a  purely  Jewish  atmos- 
phere. We  are  in  company  with  those  who  had  been  waiting  for  the  con- 
solation of  Israel,  and  to  whom  the  birth  of  Jesus  was  the  fulfillment  of  long 
cherished  hopes. 

We  come  more  definitely  into  the  Christian  region  in  the  expression,  "  Son 
of  God,"  which  is  peculiar  to  Luke's  account.  What  is  the  history  and 
significance  of  this  phrase  ?  The  question  is  of  vital  moment  in  the  study 
of  the  document. 

Stalker  says  (Christology  of  Jesus,  Armstrongs,  1900,  p.  95)  :  "In  the 
first  chapter  of  St.  Luke,  the  angel  of  the  Annunciation  calls  the  child  to  be 
born  of  Mary  by  this  name,  not  because  He  is  to  be  the  Messiah,  but  for  the 
reason  stated  in  these  words  :  '  The  Holy  Ghost  shall  come  upon  thee,  and 
the  power  of  the  Highest  shall  overshadow  thee :  therefore  also  that  holy 
thing  which  shall  be  born  of  thee  shall  be  called  the  Son  of  God.'  The 
derivation  of  His  human  nature  by  the  special  creative  act  of  God  is  here 
the  reason  of  the  name — a  reason  akin  to  that  on  account  of  which  it  is  also 
given  by  St.  Luke  to  Adam."  Bringing  these  two  passages  together  is 
most  illuminating,  but  Dr.  Stalker  does  not  seem  to  have  enjoyed  the  light 
which  he  himself  has  evoked,  for  he  goes  on  to  say,  "  I  do  not  remember 
any  other  place  in  Scripture  where  this  precise  point  of  view  recurs." 

In  the  first  place,  it  is  to  be  remembered  that  the  sentence  from  Luke 
quoted  above  was  spoken  in  reply  to  Mary's  question,  "How  can  these 
things  be  ?  "  In  the  32d  verse  he  says  of  Mary's  Son,  "  He  shall  be  great, 
and  shall  be  called  the  Son  of  the  Most  High,"  etc.    In  this  verse,  the  son- 

1  Com.  on  Luke,  ad.  loc.  2  See  note  above,  p.  131. 


324  AUTHOR'S  NOTES 

ship  is  not  connected  with  the  mode  of  His  conception  at  all — it  is  con- 
nected with  the  greatness  of  His  character. 

In  the  second  place,  the  passage  occupies  the  consistent  viewpoint  of  a 
dominant  part  of  the  New  Testament,  so  far  as  the  derivation  of  the  Lord's 
human  nature  is  concerned.  Bringing  these  two  passages  (Luke  i,  35,  and 
iii,  38)  together,  incidentally  demolishes  Lobstein's  "  physical  -filiation  " 
theory  and  also  leads  out  into  large  New  Testament  truth.  Luke  is  evi- 
dently conscious  of  a  parallel  between  Adam  and  Christ,  but  the  point  of 
connection  is  not  the  mode  of  Christ's  conception,  for  Adam  was  not  con- 
ceived at  all,  but  in  the  special  creative  act  of  God.  Adam  was  the  son  of 
God  by  immediate  creation,  so  also  was  Christ  in  His  human  nature.  But 
this  brings  at  once  to  mind  the  Pauline  conception  of  Christ  as  the  second 
Adam.  It  is  certain  that  the  miraculous  birth  as  interpreted  by  Luke  is  the 
exact  corollary  of  Paul's  doctrine  of  the  heavenly  man  or  the  second  Adam. 
It  would  puzzle  any  one  to  interpret  the  origin  of  Christ's  human  nature  on 
the  basis  of  Paul's  doctrine  by  any  other  process  than  a  miraculous  birth. 

Where  did  Paul  obtain  this  conception  of  the  second  Adam  ?  It  is  evident 
from  his  use  of  the  parallel  that  it  appealed  to  him  chiefly  from  the  side  of 
anthropology  rather  than  theology. 

Adam  was  the  head  or  representative  of  fallen  humanity — Christ  the 
head  of  redeemed  humanity.  It  is  evident,  however,  that  implicit  in  Paul's 
whole  conception  is  the  same  thought  which  Luke  expresses,  that  Jesus  was 
the  Son  of  God  by  a  process  of  bringing  into  the  world  analogous  to  the 
creation  of  Adam. 

It  is  altogether  probable  that  both  Paul  and  Luke  derived  the  conception 
from  their  Jewish-Christian  teachers.  In  accordance  with  the  purposes  and 
interests  of  each,  the  fundamental  idea  of  Christ's  divine  Sonship  through 
creation  according  to  the  similitude  of  Adam  is  developed  in  different 
directions.  Paul  uses  it  to  emphasize  and  illustrate  his  doctrine  of  sin  and 
redemption,  Luke  to  adorn  and  interpret  his  belief  in  Christ  as  the  universal 
Saviour.1 

As  Knowling  (testimony  of  St.  Paul  to  Christ,  p.  44)  2  puts  it :  "  If  St. 
Paul  had  interpreted  this  title,  '  Son  of  God,'  in  a  way  different  from  that  in 
use  among  his  brother  apostles  ;  if  in  associating  the  Person  who  bore  it  so 
closely  and  intimately  with  God  the  Father,  he  had  been  guilty  of  placing 
himself  in  opposition  to  the  beliefs  of  the  Jerusalem  Church ;  if  in  other 
words,  the  deification  of  Christ  was  due  to  St.  Paul,  how  is  it  that  we  do 

1  In  the  very  earliest  intimation  we  have  of  St.  Paul's  teaching,  he  proclaimed 
Jesus  as  the  Son  of  God  (Acts  ix,  20).  This  account  follows  his  conversion 
and  acquaintance  with  the  brethren  at  Damascus  (cf.  Acts  vii,  59  ;  Gal.  i,  16  ; 
ii,  20).  We  are  thus  led  for  an  explanation  of  the  phrase,  "  Son  of  God,"  to 
the  earliest  stratum  of  apostolic  teaching. 

2  Cf.  also  Sanday,  H.  B.  D.,  vol.  iv,  p.  277,  note. 


AUTHOR'S  NOTES  325 

not  hear  of  any  such  opposition,  of  any  violation  of  Jewish  feeling  and 
belief?  "  There  can  be  no  answer  to  this  question,  for  Paul  and  the  other 
leaders  of  the  early  church  were  in  complete  harmony  on  the  fundamental 
doctrine  of  the  person  of  Christ. 

We  have,  therefore,  a  strong  chain  of  evidence  which  connects  the  In- 
fancy narrative  of  the  third  Gospel  on  the  one  hand  with  Luke  the  com- 
panion of  Paul,  and  on  the  other  with  some  such  group  of  Jewish-Christian 
believers  as  were  at  Jerusalem  at  the  time  when  the  apostle  and  his  friend 
visited  the  Holy  City.  The  document  which  Luke  translates  and  embodies 
in  his  narrative  must  have  been  composed  from  personal  memoirs  some 
time  previous  to  the  year  A.  D.  58.  All  the  evidence  tends  to  show  that  in 
it  we  have  genuine  reminiscences  of  the  time  before  the  Messianic  con- 
ception was  transformed  by  the  death  and  resurrection  of  Christ. 

Prof.  Chase  makes  a  fair  and  moderate  statement  of  the  case  when  he 
says  {Cam.  Theo.  Essays,  pp.  408,  9):  "There  are,  I  believe,  very  strong 
critical  reasons  for  accepting  the  tradition  that  the  Acts  and  consequently 
also  the  third  Gospel  were  the  work  of  St.  Luke.  The  Acts  evidence,  as 
we  have  already  seen,  that  the  writer  spent  some  time  in  Jerusalem  and  in 
Palestine,  and  further  that  he  was  known  to  James,  the  brother  of  the  Lord. 
It  is  not  an  extravagant  conjecture  that  he  derived  his  knowledge  of  the 
Birth  and  Infancy  of  our  Lord  from  St.  James  and  other  members  of  the 
Holy  Family.  As  regards  St.  Luke's  story,  therefore,  the  inference  that  it 
is  ultimately  derived  from  the  Lord's  mother  is  in  agreement  with  what  we 
independently  infer  from  a  study  of  the  other  Lucan  document  as  to  the 
sources  of  information  open  to  the  evangelist."  In  view  of  all  the  facts,  it 
is  not  extravagant  to  say  that  there  are  few  documents  coming  down  to  us 
from  antiquity  which  are  so  well  attested  as  the  preliminary  section  of  the 
third  Gospel. 

Turning  now  to  the  corresponding  section  of  the  first  Gospel,  we  find  the 
case  somewhat  different.  In  the  first  place,  as  Prof.  "Wright  says,  the  docu- 
ment shows  unmistakable  evidences  of  having  been  in  the  hands  of  the 
catechists  and  used  for  oral  teaching.  This  being  so,  the  conclusion  is 
inevitable  that  whatever  primitive  material  the  section  contains  has  under- 
gone certain  modifications  in  the  course  of  its  transmission.  This  latter 
consideration  is  of  primary  importance,  for  it  affords  a  reason  for  the  dis- 
crepancies which  we  find  between  the  two  narratives.  Coming  as  the 
primitive  element  in  the  narrative  much  from  practically  the  same  source 
as  Luke's,  it  would  be  difficult  to  understand  how  such  discrepancies  as 
that  concerning  the  previous  residence  at  Nazareth  could  arise.  But  if  the 
primitive  document  or  oral  narrative  had  been  in  the  hands  of  catechists, 
many  of  whom  had  no  knowledge  of  any  other  story  of  the  Infancy,  we  could 
understand  that  in  the  process  of  teaching  and  transmission,  the  account  would 
tend  to  become  a  closed  cycle,  complete  in  itself ;  and  lose  all  signs  of  con- 


326  AUTHOR'S  NOTES 

nection  with  the  other  story.  The  search  for  primitive  matter  in  the  nar- 
rative would  naturally  lead  us  at  the  outset  to  the  passage.  Matt,  i,  18-25.  I 
hold  it  to  be  self-evident  that  such  an  incident  could  not  have  been  an 
imaginative  creation — the  only  conceivable  way  in  which  such  a  story 
could  have  risen  as  a  late  production  would  have  been  as  an  offset  to  Jewish 
or  heathen  calumnies — that  is,  after  the  publication  of  the  virgin  birth 
had  given  rise  to  calumniation  among  the  opponents  of  Christianity.  As  we 
have  no  evidence  of  such  calumnies  until  the  second  century,  the  narrative, 
on  this  supposition,  must  have  been  very  late.  This  hypothesis  is  incapable 
of  successful  defense.  The  conclusion  is,  therefore,  inevitable  that  we  have 
a  very  early  narrative  coming  more  or  less  directly  from  the  family  itself. 

In  the  following  chapter,  the  visit  of  the  Magi  and  connected  events  are 
also  undoubtedly  primitive  and  more  or  less  direct.  As  has  already  been 
noted,  it  is  a  homogeneous,  self-consistent,  and  interdependent  narrative.  The 
coming  of  the  Magi  gave  a  dangerous  publicity  to  the  child's  birth  and 
brought  about  the  flight  and  the  massacre.  It  is  consistent  with  itself 
and  also  with  the  preceding  narrative.  The  tie  which  binds  these  two 
apparently  disconnected  narratives  together  is  the  prominence  ascribed  to 
Joseph.  And  in  this  very  fact,  we  have  an  evidence  of  the  primitive  char- 
acter of  the  original  document.  What  conceivable  motive  could  there  be 
for  a  late  exploiting  of  Joseph  ?  What  scanty  evidence  we  have,  seems  to 
point  to  his  death  before  the  ministry  of  Jesus  began.  Why  then  should  any 
late  believer  wish  to  invent  incidents  in  which  he  is  prominent?  To  be 
invented  at  all  requires  a  late  date  for  the  passage — at  such  a  date  the  motive 
for  invention  had  ceased  to  exist.  Apart  from  the  application  of  prophecy 
to  the  incidents,  a  much  controverted  topic  which  will  be  alluded  to  a  little 
later,  there  are  not  a  few  indications  of  an  early  date. 

1.  The  impersonal  use  of  the  term,  "  Holy  Spirit."  The  significance  of 
this  has  already  been  commented  upon. 

2.  Use  of  the  phrase,  "Herod  the  King."  This  is  a  slight  but  significant 
indication  of  date.  We  find  from  Josephus  (Ant.  xviii,  5,  3)  that  after  Herod' s 
death,  he  came  to  be  called  "Great"  in  distinction  from  the  other  members 
of  the  Herodian  family  who  succeeded  him  and  were  the  reverse  of  great. 
In  the  first  and  third  Gospels,  he  is  called  "The  King."  The  narratives 
while  written  after  Herod's  death  occupy,  perhaps  unconsciously,  but  none 
the  less  certainly,  the  contemporary  viewpoint.  This  would  have  been 
impossible  for  a  late  writer. 

3.  The  conception  of  salvation  in  the  section  (i,  22)  is  Messianic  rather 
than  Christian,  and  like  that  of  the  prophets,  social  rather  than  individual. 
"He  shall  save  His  people  from  their  sins."  The  phrase  rbv  labv  avrov  is  a 
distinct  echo  of  the  "peculiar  people"'  promise  of  the  Old  Testament. 
The  sins  are  those  which  would  interfere  with  the  establishment  of  the 
Messianic  age. 


AUTHOR'S  NOTES  $2? 

4.  The  expression  and  idea  of  ayyeT^oq  Kvpiov  (ii,  13)  is  purely  Hebraic. 

These  four  items  of  evidence  are  certainly  adequate  proof  that  we  have 
no  late  document — if  not  late,  it  cannot  well  be  mythical. 

Weiss  (B. )  In.  N.  T.,  vol.  ii,  p.  274,  note  28  claims  that  the  form  of  the 
word  Jerusalem  found  in  Matt,  ii,  I  belongs  to  the  evangelist,  and  not  to 
the  source. 

It  is  not  a  vital  question,  for  no  one  denies  that  the  document  has  been 
through  the  hands  of  the  evangelist.  I  should  like  to  think  that  Weiss  is 
correct  in  this  supposition  because  it  is  so  favorable  to  the  primitive  character 
of  Luke's  narrative,  but  I  fear  that  I  must  forego  whatever  advantage 
it  involves,  for  the  evidence  is  against  it.  The  ending  (^Vf1)  attributed  to 
the  source  is  used  in  Matthew  but  once  out  of  a  total  of  twelve  instances. 
It  is  used  not  at  all  in  Mark,  and  all  but  three  times  in  Luke.  In  the  In- 
fancy section  of  the  latter  it  is  used  six  times  out  of  seven.  It  is  evidently 
an  individual  peculiarity  with  no  documentary  significance. 

At  this  point,  a  question  arises  concerning  the  origin  of  the  specific  appli- 
cations of  prophecy  of  which  the  first  Gospel  has  eleven,  four  occurring 
in  the  Infancy  section.  Prof.  Wright  argues  strenuously  against  the  Mattha- 
ean  origin  of  these  passages,  but  the  arguments  to  the  contrary  adduced  by 
Weiss,  and  Bartlett  (H.  B.  D.,vol.  hi, p.  297b)  seem  tome  conclusive.  This 
is  not  the  vital  question,  however,  for  the  historical  investigation.  The 
legitimacy  of  the  applications  of  prophecy  is  one  question,  the  historicity 
of  the  incidents  with  which  the  prophetic  passages  are  connected  is  quite 
another.  It  is  with  the  latter  that  we  are  now  concerned.  Taking  up 
these  passages  which  occur  outside  the  Infancy  narrative,  we  have  the 
following : — 

(1)    Matt,  iv,  15-16  connected  with  Isa.  ix,  1; 


(*) 

(3) 
(4) 
(5) 
(6) 
(7) 


xii,  18-21  "  "  Isa.  xlii,  1-4; 

xii,  40  "  "  Jonah  i,  17; 

xiii,  14-15  "  "  Isa.  vi,  9,  IO; 

xiii,  35  "  "  Psa.  lxxviii,  2; 

xxi,  5  "  "  Zech.  ix,  9;  and  Isa.  lxii,  II; 

xxvii,  9,  10  **  "  Zech.  xi,  13. 

The  analysis  of  these  instances  leads  to  the  following  results  : — 

1.  The  prophecy  is  connected  with  the  transition  of  Jesus  from  Nazareth 
to  Capernaum  as  a  place  of  residence.  It  is  a  perfectly  natural  and  cer- 
tainly historical  event — one  of  the  undisputed  events  of  the  narrative. 

2.  The  prophecy  in  this  passage  is  connected  with  one  of  the  instances 
in  which  Jesus  is  represented  as  having  cautioned  the  people  whom  he  had 
healed  from  indiscriminate  publication  of  the  miracle.  There  is  no  reason 
whatever  to  suspect  the  historicity  of  the  incident — it  finds  abundant  con- 
firmation elsewhere. 


328  AUTHOR'S  NOTES 

3.  The  passage  from  Jonah  is  applied  figuratively  to  the  Resurrection 
which  is  assuredly  historical,  if  any  cardinal  event  of  the  Gospel  narrative  is. 

4.  The  prophetic  passage  quoted  here  is  applied  to  the  statement  of  Jesus 
in  which  He  explains  to  them  the  hidden  meaning  of  the  parable  which  He 
had  spoken  to  the  people.  There  is  no  reason  to  suspect  the  reality  of  the 
statement.  It  is  one  of  the  characteristic  utterances  of  Jesus  which  no  one 
thinks  of  disputing. 

5.  The  prophetic  passage  is  quoted  here  also  in  connection  with  the 
habit  of  Jesus  of  speaking  in  parables.  There  is  no  reason  to  suspect  the 
saying. 

6.  The  prophetic  sentences  from  Zechariah  and  Isaiah  quoted  in  this  pas- 
sage relate  to  the  triumphal  entry — an  undisputed  incident  in  the  career  of 
Jesus,  confirmed  both  by  Mark  and  Luke. 

7.  This  prophecy  is  brought  into  connection  with  the  betrayal,  and  finds 
a  hint  of  the  sum  received  for  the  deed.  That  Judas  actually  received 
the  money  is  not  seriously  questioned. 

Now,  in  studying  these  prophecies  it  becomes  evident  that  the  person  who 
is  responsible  for  them  is  not  attempting  to  fit  events  to  prophecies,  but  to  fit 
prophecies  to  events.  His  inventiveness  and  imaginativeness  are  exercised 
in  searching  for  prophecies  to  illustrate  the  events  with  which  he  is  familiar. 
By  far  the  larger  part  of  these  seven  instances  are  familiar,  general, 
thoroughly-accredited  incidents,  and  not  one  of  them  is  under  suspicion. 
Now,  if  the  same  person  is  responsible  for  the  prophetic  applications  in  the 
Infancy  section  as  is  most  probable — indeed  practically  certain — the  inference 
is  certainly  reasonable  that  the  same  motive  operated  in  producing  all  the 
quotations.  Why  should  we  suppose  that  out  of  eleven  instances  four 
should  be  pure  inventions,  in  toto,  out  of  nothing,  and  seven  simply  well- 
accredited  historic  instances?  The  reasonable  conclusion  is  that  in  the 
four  instances  as  in  the  seven  the  author  took  accredited  incidents  and  made 
the  applications  of  prophecy  to  them. 

We  have  thus  reached  the  conclusion  that  the  foundation  document  of 
the  Infancy  narrative  of  the  first  Gospel  was  a  history  of  Joseph's  part  in 
the  events  which  preceded  and  followed  the  birth  cf  Jesus.  That  such  a 
document  was  in  existence  and  in  safe  keeping  for  future  preservation 
seems  almost  a  certainty.  The  registration  of  circumstances  surrounding 
the  birth  of  a  firstborn  son  in  an  Eastern  family  is  not  ordinarily  left  to 
chance.  Certainly,  in  a  house  of  the  lineage  of  David,  at  a  time  when  the 
Messianic  hope  was  particularly  vivid,  the  birth  of  a  son  would  be  an 
important  event.  If  there  were  any  wonderful  incidents  connected  with  it, 
they  would  unquestionably  be  put  into  a  record.  If  Joseph  had  any 
experiences  out  of  the  ordinary,  he  would  undoubtedly  see  to  it  that  a  care- 
ful narrative  of  his  experiences  was  preserved.  He  would  guard  the 
honor  of  his  home  after  his  death  as  he  had  done  in  his  life.     It  is  my 


AUTHOR'S  NOTES  329 

conviction,  deepened  by  every  hour  of  study  which  I  have  been  able 
to  put  upon  the  document  that  in  the  Infancy  section  of  the  first  Gospel, 
aside  from  the  prophetic  applications,  we  have  the  personal  story  of  Joseph's 
relationship  to  Christ — an  apologia  pro  vita  sua — the  enduring  memorial  of 
a  good  man's  life.  This  document  is  all  the  more  significant  and  pathetic, 
if  it  be  true  that  he  was  early  removed  from  the  scene,  and  did  not  live  to 
witness  the  career  of  his  unique  foster  Son. 

I  may  also  record  the  conviction  to  which  (though  the  evidence  may 
seem  too  slight  to  warrant  the  conclusion)  I  have  gradually  come  in  the 
course  of  this  study — that  the  two  narratives  of  Matthew  and  Luke  are 
fragments  of  one  common  narrative.  To  be  sure,  Dr.  Briggs  finds  in 
Matthew  a  part  of  a  poem  in  the  same  meter  as  one  in  Luke,  but  I  base  my 
conviction  more  upon  a  certain  underlying  unity  of  thought,1  viewpoint, 
feeling,  and  atmosphere  which,  in  spite  of  superficial  differences,  seems  to 
point  to  a  common  document.  Might  there  not  easily  have  come  into  the 
possession  of  the  Jerusalem  church  a  document  containing  the  personal 
reminiscences  of  the  Holy  Family  which  might  be  called,  "  The  Memoirs 
of  Joseph  and  Mary  "  ? 

The  publication  of  the  documents  presents  a  slightly  different  problem. 
The  histoiy  contained  in  these  documents  must  for  a  long  time  have  been 
kept  secret,  and  for  this  reason,  the  evidence  for  the  history  of  the  docu- 
ments is  scanty. 

Prof.  Chase  maintains  that  the  interpretation  of  the  documents  as 
unhistorical  is  beset  with  difficulties,  and  while  he  admits  that  the  posi- 
tive documentary  evidence  is  comparatively  slight,  asks  this  significant  and 
unanswerable  question  :  "Can  we,  if  the  truth  of  the  history  is  assumed, 
conceive  of  the  evidence  being  essentially  different  from  what  it  is?  We 
keep  our  birthdays ;  we  veil  all  that  concerns  the  first  beginning  of  our 
physical  life  in  reverent  silence.  It  cannot  have  been  otherwise  in  the 
Holy  Family.     The  story,  if  true,  must  have  rested  ultimately  on  the  word 

1  Prof.  Bacon's  contention  (quoted  by  Dr.  Riggs  in  the  Introduction 
from  Biblical  "World  )  that  the  virgin  birth  is  a  compromise  or  amalgamation 
between  the  primitive  doctrine  of  Messiahship  by  descent  from  David,  and 
the  Hellenistic,  of  Messiahship  by  Incarnation,  etc.,  seems  to  miss  certain 
fundamental  facts  of  the  problem.  1.  The  statement  concerning  the  virgin 
birth  is  not  a  derivative  of  Paul's  or  John's  doctrine  :  it  is  one  of  the  facts  from 
which  their  doctrine  was  derived,  and  is  just  as  primitive  as  the  theory  of  the 
Davidic  descent.  It  does  not  go  back  of  the  Christian  era,  but  it  stands  as 
primary  fact  in  that  era.  It  is  not  secondary  nor  derivative  and,  emphatically, 
it  is  not  conceived  in  the  Hellenistic  spirit  nor  expressed  in  the  Hellenistic 
form.  2.  The  Incarnation  is  a  summary  of  the  Christian  facts  under  one  com- 
prehensive designation.  It  is  a  growth,  the  roots  of  which  strike  back  to  the 
facts  of  Jesus'  life. 


330  AUTHOR'S  NOTES 

of  the  Lord's  mother.  It  can  only  have  been  known  to  very  few,  and 
their  lips  must  long  have  been  sealed." 

Holtzmann  puts  the  problem  very  suggestively.  He  says  (L.  J.  Eng.  Tr.): 
"All  these  open  manifestations  of  joy  (referring  to  Luke's  narrative)  at  the 
birth  of  the  Messiah  would  have  betrayed  to  the  world,  prematurely,  the 
secret  which  Jesus,  at  the  time  of  Peter's  confession,  declares  had  never 
yet  been  uttered  by  human  lips,  and  which  even  at  that  comparatively  late 
period  He  still  does  not  allow  even  His  own  disciples  to  mention  to  any  one 
(Matt,  xvi,  17,  20  ;  Mark  viii,  29)."  This  is  a  manifest  overstatement,  but 
it  certainly  expresses  an  important  truth,  and  is  worthy  of  careful  exami- 
nation. There  are  two  questions  to  which  Holtzmann' s  objections  give  rise  : 
"How  great  publicity  is  involved  in  Luke's  narrative?  What  bearing  has 
the  secrecy  which  Jesus  enjoined  upon  His  disciples  upon  the  subject  we  are 
now  studying?  " 

As  to  the  publicity  implied  in  the  narrative,  it  is  evident  that  there  is  an 
inclination  to  exaggerate  it.  It  is  said  (Luke  i,  65,  according  to  our  ver- 
sion) that  the  incidents  connected  with  the  birth  of  John  were  carried  abroad 
throughout  all  the  hill  country  of  Judaea,  and,  again  (ii,  17),  that  the  shep- 
herds made  known  abroad  the  saying  which  had  been  told  them  concerning 
the  child.  In  both  cases,  the  translation  unduly  emphasizes  the  element  of 
publicity  and  wide  proclamation.  At  the  most,  nothing  could  have  occurred 
but  country-side  gossip  and  perhaps  a  nine-days'  local  wonder.  Moreover, 
Luke  intimates  most  significantly  that  the  family  did  not  talk.  This  means 
that  the  spread  of  gossip  concerning  the  birth  must  have  been  checked  by 
the  blank  unresponsiveness  of  those  who  were  most  closely  concerned.  The 
emphasis  with  which  Luke  states  the  attitude  of  Mary  carries  with  it  the 
implication  that  he  considered  the  matter  of  great  importance  (cf.  verses  17 
and  18  with  19). 

But,  even  so,  as  Holtzmann  suggests,  it  was  dangerous  ;  and  the  narrative 
of  the  first  Gospel  comes  in  to  show  us  how  dangerous  it  was.  The  talk 
occasioned  by  the  birth  of  John,  and  the  interest  aroused  by  the  story  of  the 
shepherds,  died  away  without  coming  to  the  ears  of  the  authorities.  It  was 
provincial,  local,  and  temporary,  so  that  Herod's  many  spies  heard 
nothing  of  it. 

Not  so  the  coming  of  the  Magi.  They  journeyed  at  once  to  Jerusalem, 
and  made  public  inquiry,  with  a  naive  frankness  which  shows  that  they 
were  better  acquainted  with  the  religious  hopes  than  with  the  political 
situation  of  Israel.  Their  inquiry  was  heard  by  some  of  Herod's  spies,  and 
at  once  reported  to  him.  This  resulted  in  a  disturbance  at  the  palace  in 
which  all  official  Jerusalem  shared  ;  and  since  the  Jewish  authorities  were 
consulted,  the  excitement  was  doubtless  widespread.  It  resulted  in  the 
blind  attack  upon  Jesus,  and  the  murder  of  the  children  at  Bethlehem. 
Thenceforward  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus  was  kept  a  profound  secret  among 


AUTHOR'S  NOTES  331 

His  own  people  ;  and  one  might  perhaps  safely  say,  after  the  death  of 
Joseph  with  His  own  mother,  until  at  His  ministry  it  was  brought  forward 
under  new  conditions.  Holtzmann's  criticism,  which  would  be  entirely 
justified  if  the  facts  were  just  as  he  states  them,  serves  to  bring  out  the 
striking  truthfulness  of  the  narrative.  It  is  true  to  the  times,  the  conditions, 
and  the  circumstances,  under  which  He  was  born. 

Now,  as  to  the  second  question.  It  would  seem  from  the  passages 
referred  toby  Holtzmann  (Matt.xvi,  20;  Markviii,30;  Luke  ix,  21)  that  the 
Messianic  secret  was,  in  a  sense,  continued  throughout  our  Lord's  ministry. 
Why  did  He  so  strongly  prohibit  the  public  proclamation  of  His  Messiah- 
ship?  The  reason  is  to  be  sought  for  in  the  context  on  each  occasion  when 
it  occurs. 

In  the  account  of  the  great  confession  (Matt,  xvi,  16-20),  the  prohibition 
is  placed  immediately  before  the  statement  that  He  then  began  to  teach 
them  of  His  coming  death.  The  connection  is  most  significant.  They 
could  not  intelligently  proclaim  His  Messiahship  because  they  did  not 
understand  it.  They  had  not  yet  brought  into  their  conception  of  the 
Messiah  the  cardinal  fact  of  His  death  and  Resurrection.  In  the  next 
chapter,  the  meaning  of  the  prohibition  is  clearly  brought  out.  Coming 
down  from  the  Mount  of  Transfiguration,  the  Lord  said  to  His  companions, 
"  Tell  the  vision  to  no  man  until  the  Son  of  man  be  risen  again  from  the  dead." 
Their  illumination  as  preachers  of  the  Messiah  lay  still  in  the  future.  They 
were  not  yet  fitted  for  their  task.  It  was  one  thing  to  believe  that  Jesus 
was  the  Messiah — quite  another  to  understand  what  kind  of  a  Messiah  He 
was  to  be.  The  evidence  seems  clear  that  Jesus  did  not  proclaim  His 
Messiahship  except  in  answer  to  faith.  He  repelled  mere  idle  curiosity. 
He  resolutely  sifted  His  loose  following  by  parables  and  hard  sayings,  and 
kept  His  clearer  teachings  for  those  who  exhibited  spiritual  aptitude  and 
discernment.  As  time  went  on  and  the  opposition  to  Him  deepened,  He 
turned  more  and  more  to  His  disciples,  to  whom  He  made  the  most  intimate 
disclosures  of  truth.  There  was,  therefore,  always  something  esoteric  about 
Christian  teaching.  The  inner  and  more  spiritual  truths  were  made  known 
to  seekers  for  the  truth. 

The  message  of  the  disciples  during  Jesus'  life  was  the  kingdom  and  the 
deeds  and  the  words  of  Jesus,  who  had  come  to  proclaim  and  establish  the 
kingdom.  Jesus  Himself  left  His  Messiahship  to  be  a  matter  of  inference 
from  His  person  and  work  rather  than  a  direct  proclamation. 

We  find,  as  Lumby  shows,  that  this  same  kind  of  secrecy  was  maintained 
in  the  sub-apostolic  age  concerning  the  statements  of  the  creed.  Professor 
Wright  holds  that  much  of  Matthew's  Gospel  was  esoteric  doctrine  ;  that  is, 
taught  to  His  disciples  in  an  intimate,  personal  way.  We  have  then  some 
light  upon  the  publication  of  the  Infancy  narratives.  They  occupy  the 
purely  Messianic  viewpoint.     They  would,  therefore,   occupy  a  position 


332  AUTHOR'S  NOTES 

secondary  and  auxiliary  to  the  proclamation  of  the  Passion  and  Resurrection. 
Their  interest  is  primarily  biographical,  secondarily  doctrinal,  and  chiefly  of 
interest  to  those  who  had  come  to  be  believers  in  Jesus.  The  story  of 
Christ's  birth  would  naturally  not  be  disclosed  until  a  firm  basis  for  faith  in 
Him  had  been  laid  in  the  proclamation  of  His  passion  and  resurrection.  It 
would  be  a  part  of  the  arcana  of  Christianity,  until  the  truth  had  gained 
sufficient  scope  and  power  to  gain  for  the  mystery  of  the  miraculous  birth  a 
respectful  hearing  on  the  part  of  those  already  convinced  of  the  Messiah- 
ship  of  Jesus. 

So  far  as  the  publication  of  Mary's  story  is  concerned,  it  seems  to  me  that 
Prof.  Steele  has  struck  the  exact  truth  when  he  says x  :  "  For,  then  (the 
publication  of  the  fact  of  His  virgin  birth)  there  appears  before  His  exaltation 
no  moment  when  Mary's  regard  for  modesty  or  for  personal  safety  would 
have  dared  whisper  it,  or  when  faith  could  have  grasped  it." 

So  far  as  Luke's  narrative  is  concerned  (and  the  history  of  Matthew's 
might  be  just  as  clear,  had  we  the  facts  as  well  in  hand),  it  seems  that  we 
have  some  indications  which  point  toward  the  truth.  The  evidence  seems 
to  indicate  that  Luke's  narrative  was  published  directly  from  the  documents 
of  the  Jerusalem  church.  How  long  it  was  kept  as  a  secret  possession,  we 
have  no  means  of  knowing,  but  probably  from  some  time  very  near  the 
Ascension  to  A.  D.  58. 

Prof.  Chase  holds  that  the  book  of  the  Acts  was  written  or  at  least  planned 
before  the  third  Gospel.2  On  the  basis  of  that  supposition,  he  reasons  thus  : 
"It  seems  probable  that  when  St.  Luke  wrote  Acts  i,  1,  the  plan  of  the 
Gospel  had  formed  itself  in  his  mind,  and  that  he  intended  to  follow  his 
source  (z.  e.  the  Markan  Gospel),  and  begin  the  history  with  the  baptism  of 
John.  The  fact  that  there  is  absolutely  no  textual  evidence  against  Luke 
iii  (contrast  case  of  [Mark]  xvi,  9  ff . )  at  once  negatives  the  possible  sugges- 
tion that  the  two  chapters  were  added  in  a  second  edition  of  the  Gospel. 
We  conclude  that  before  the  Gospel  was  published,  one  of  two  things  had 
happened :  Either  the  evangelist  had  received  information  as  to  the  Lord's 
birth  which  he  had  not  possessed  before,  or  he  had  for  some  reason  become 
free  to  use  information  which  he  already  possessed  but  might  not  disclose." 
If  we  but  knew  the  date  of  Mary's  death,  the  final  missing  clew  as  to  this 
process  might  be  put  in  our  hands.  At  any  rate  we  have  come  near  to  the 
actual  time  and  circumstances  of  publication. 

1  Meth.  Review,  vol.  viii,  p.  22. 
a  Cam.  Theol.  Essays,  p.  406,  note. 


NOTE  C 

A  SUMMARY  AND   ESTIMATE   OF  DR.  RAMSAY'S    ARGUMENT    IN 
"  WAS  CHRIST  BORN  AT  BETHLEHEM  ?  "  WITH  SOME  RE- 
MARKS ON  THE  CENSUS  QUESTION 

Dr.  Ramsay's  book  begins  with  a  statement  as  to  Luke's  claim  for  his 
history.  "While  he  was  not  an  eyewitness  of  the  remarkable  events  which 
he  is  proceeding  to  record  (page  Ii),  he  was  one  of  the  second  generation 
to  whom  the  information  had  been  communicated  by  those  "who  from  the 
beginning  were  eyewitnesses  and  ministers  of  the  word."  He  thus  claims 
the  very  highest  authority  for  his  narrative  as  a  whole. 

Luke  also  claims  to  have  given  especial  attention  to  the  order  and  sequence 
of  events,  and  the  genesis  and  growth  of  them.  His  statement  implies  that, 
since  he  had  in  his  possession  the  materials  for  a  comprehensive  and  trust- 
worthy narrative,  he  felt  it  a  duty  to  supplement  accounts  already  in  existence 
with  one  more  complete.  The  whole  tone  of  the  preface,  as  well  as  the 
words,  calls  attention  to  the  new  material  contained  in  the  Gospel,  and 
especially  to  the  Infaqcy  narrative  as  constituting  the  most  considerable 
addition  which  he  makes  to  the  narrative. 

In  view  of  this  claim  made  by  Luke  on  behalf  of  his  narrative,  the  ques- 
tion involved  in  his  statement,  which  dates  the  birth  of  Christ  in  an  enroll- 
ment, assumes  a  position  of  critical  importance  (pages  21,  22).  If  this  state- 
ment be  a  blunder,  the  entire  story  must  be  relegated  to  the  realm  of  myth- 
ology, and  the  writer  who  mistakes  fable  for  fact,  and  tries  to  prop  up  his 
mistake  by  another  error  of  the  grossest  kind,  can  retain  no  credit  as  an 
historical  authority  ;  for,  though  a  historian  may  make  a  slip  in  some  detail 
without  losing  claim  to  be  trustworthy,  he  must  not  found  his  reasoning 
upon  the  error.  In  the  present  instance,  the  error  forms  the  very  life-blood 
of  the  work. 

The  design  of  Luke's  history  as  a  whole  is  to  relate  the  beginnings  of 
Christian  history  with  the  administration  of  the  Roman  Empire.  A  blunder 
so  serious  as  to  place  the  birth  of  Christ  at  the  time  of  a  census,  which  took 
place  several  years  afterwards,  impairs  the  integrity  of  the  entire  account  in 
which  it  is  found. 

The  progress  of  knowledge  in  the  methods  of  Roman  administration  in 
the  provinces  has  shown  that  many  statements  of  Luke's,  formerly  looked 

333 


334  AUTHOR'S  NOTES 

upon  as  unquestionable  blunders,  are  strictly  correct.  Luke  exhibits  "  mar- 
velous accuracy  and  great  power  of  conceiving  and  setting  before  the  reader 
a  lifelike  picture  of  what  actually  occurred."  This  lends  great  credibility 
to  other  statements  of  his  thus  far  lacking  corroboration,  for  "he  that  shows 
the  historic  faculty  in  part  of  his  work  has  it  as  a  permanent  possession." 

The  general  character  of  Luke's  work  throws  doubt  upon  the  supposition 
that  in  the  matter  of  the  enrollment  he  has  made  a  blunder  (page  52). 

Luke's  view  of  the  Roman  Empire  was  essentially  Greek,  and  his  state- 
ments must  be  estimated  as  coming  from  one  who  speaks  of  things  Roman 
as  they  appeared  to  a  Greek. 

Luke  interprets  Paul,  therefore,  as  a  Hebrew  or  Grseco-Roman.  For  a 
Greek  he  was  unusually  accurate  in  his  statements  concerning  Roman 
persons  and  events,  but  he  never  altogether  frees  himself  from  the  Greek 
viewpoint. 

The  internal  evidence  seems  to  prove  that  Theophilus  was  a  citizen  of 
Rome  (page  65).  It  would  seem,  therefore,  that  a  document  addressed  to 
a  Roman  citizen  and  intended  to  relate  Christianity  to  the  general  life  of 
the  Empire  would  be  susceptible  of  exposure  on  the  part  of  the  person  to 
whom  it  was  addressed. 

"  How,  then,  does  it  happen  that,  while  the  circumstances  of  the  birth 
of  Christ  were  closely  scrutinized  by  the  opponents  of  Christianity  and  sub- 
jected to  much  misrepresentation  and  many  charges  of  falsification,  no  one 
in  Roman  times  seems  ever  to  have  discovered  the  inaccuracies,  which  many 
modern  inquirers  imagine  to  themselves?  "      (Pages  70,  71.) 

Luke  ascribes  the  utmost  importance  to  the  story  of  Christ's  birth.  This 
is  shown  by  the  space  given  to  it,  by  the  elaboration  of  the  account,  and  by 
the  emphasis  which  he  places  upon  the  incidental  statements  concerning  his 
authority  contained  in  the  account  (page  74  ff.). 

The  statement  is  made  that  the  census  forming  the  hinge  upon  which 
Luke's  narrative  turns  is  unhistorical  and  that  the  statement  concerning  it 
involves  the  transfer  of  a  census  and  valuation  made  under  Quirinius  about 
A.  D.  6—7  to  a  different  period  nine  or  twelve  years  earlier.  There  are  five 
considerations  which  are  urged  against  the  correctness  of  Luke's  account. 

1 .  It  is  declared  to  be  a  demonstrated  fact  that  Augustus  never  ordered  any 
general  "  enrollment "  or  census  to  be  made   of  the  whole  Roman  world. 

2.  If  Augustus  had  ordered  a  census  to  be  made  of  the  whole  empire, 
it  is  maintained  that  such  a  census  would  not  have  extended  to  Palestine, 
which  was  an  independent  kingdom  and  not  subject  to  the  orders  of 
Augustus. 

3.  Even  if  a  census  had  been  held  in  Palestine,  it  is  asserted  that  there 
would  have  been  no  necessity  for  Joseph  and  Mary  to  go  up  from  Nazareth 
to  the  city  of  Bethlehem,  inasmuch  as  a  Roman  census  would  be  made 
according  to  the  existing  political  and  social  facts,  and  would  not  require 


author's  notes  335 

that  persons  should  be  enrolled  according  to  their  place  of  birth  or  origin. 

4.  It  is  maintained  that  no  census  was  ever  held  in  Judaja  until  A.  D. 
6-7,  on  the  ground  that  the  "great  census"  (Acts  v,  37)  is  described  by 
Josephus  as  something  novel  and  unheard  of,  rousing  popular  indignation 
and  rebellion  on  that  account. 

5.  It  is  affirmed  that  Quirinius  never  governed  Syria  during  the  life  of 
Herod,  for  Herod  died  in  4  B.  C,  and  Quirinius  was  governor  of  Syria  later 
than  3  B.  C.  and  probably  in  2  or  I  B.  C.  Therefore,  a  census  taken  in  the 
time  of  Quirinius  could  not  be  associated  with  the  binh  of  a  child  in  the 
days  of  Herod,  King  of  Judaea. 

In  reply  to  each  of  these  arguments  Prof.  Ramsay  has  something  to  say. 

In  regard  to  the  first  there  is  evidence  in  corroboration  of  Luke's  state- 
ment.    This  is  the  chief  argument  of  the  book. 

In  reply  to  the  second  argument,  it  is  to  be  said  that  Judaea  was  not  an 
independent  kingdom.  Moreover,  Luke  does  not  state  that  the  census  was 
made  according  to  the  Roman  plan  or  by  Roman  officials. 

The  third  argument  against  Luke  rests  upon  the  same  false  foundation. 
Luke's  statement  implies  that  Herod  carried  out  the  census  of  Augustus 
according  to  Hebrew  methods,  making  it  tribal  and  therefore  less  repugnant 
to  Jewish  feeling. 

In  reply  to  argument  four,  attention  is  called  to  the  fact  that  undoubtedly 
the  earliest  valuation  and  census  of  property  made  after  the  Roman  fashion 
in  Palestine  took  place,  as  Josephus  says,  in  A.  D.  7.  This  aroused  indig- 
nation and  rebellion.  The  census  of  Herod  was  tribal  and  Hebraic,  not 
anti-national.  It  had  no  connection  with  Roman  taxation,  and  aroused  no 
great  national  feeling. 

These  four  arguments  rest  on  a  false  interpretation  of  Luke's  statement. 
A  correct  view  of  what  Luke  really  means  to  state  does  much  to  overthrow 
all  these  arguments. 

In  regard  to  the  governorship  of  Quirinius  (Arg.  5),  it  is  to  be  remembered 
that  (according  to  the  best  authorities)  Quirinius  was  governor  of  Syria 
twice.  The  balance  of  evidence  is  in  favor  of  his  having  held  office  the 
first  time  prior  to  Herod's  death  (page  1 10). 

The  author  maintains  that  the  positions  which  the  book  advocates  are  the 
"most  probable  issue  of  the  scanty  evidence,  and  that  some  of  them  rest  on 
testimony  outside  of  Luke's  writings,  which  in  ordinary  historical  criticism 
is  reckoned  sufficient  justification,  while  the  others  are  in  themselves  quite 
natural,  and  there  is  practically  no  evidence  against  them,  so  that  Luke's 
authority  should  be  reckoned  as  sufficient  to  establish  them." 

Possible  views  on  the  questions  involved  seem  to  be  three : — 

1st.  The  story  of  the  birth  of  Christ  as  given  by  Luke,  is  so  suspicious 
and  encumbered  with  so  many  difficulties  that  it  is  as  a  whole  incredible. 

2d.  The  story  is  true. 


336  AUTHOR'S  NOTES 

3d.  The  main  part  of  the  story  is  true,  but  the  reference  to  Quirinius  is 
wrong  (page  m). 

The  third  supposition  is  incredible  so  that  we  are  practically  reduced  to 
the  two.  If  the  story  is  not  correct,  the  statement  was  introduced  in  order 
to  give  plausibility  to  a  fiction. 

Luke's  statement  implies  that  Judssa,  as  a  part  of  the  Roman  world,  was 
involved  in  the  enrollment.  Luke's  conception  of  the  affair  is  this: 
Augustus  ordered  a  systematic  numbering  to  be  made  in  the  empire.  This 
system  of  numbering  went  on  for  a  time  or  more  probably  permanently,  and 
hence  the  "first"  of  the  series  is  here  defined  as  the  occasion  on  which  the 
story  turns.  Luke  does  not  say  that  it  was  actually  put  in  force  throughout 
the  empire,  but  that  the  principle  was  laid  down  by  Augustus.  From  Luke's 
account,  the  notion  would  be  drawn  that  during  the  first  century  a  system 
of  numbering  the  population  at  periodic  intervals  prevailed. 

It  is  evident  that  Luke  did  not  confuse  the  enrollment  in  connection  with 
which  Christ  was  born,  and  the  later  one  A.  D.  7,  for  he  calls  the  former 
"the  first  census  " 1  and  the  latter  "  the  census,  or  great  census."  2 

Clement  thus  understood  Luke  for  he  speaks  of  the  occasion  "  when  first 
they  ordered  enrollments  to  be  made."  Clement  seems  clearly  to  have 
known  of  periodic  enrollments  in  Egypt,  and  supposed  that  the  same  pro- 
cedure was  carried  on  in  Palestine.  Clement  expressly  states  that  the  sys- 
tem began  with  the  one  at  which  the  birth  of  Christ  occurred  (page  129). 

It  has  been  discovered  by  three  independent  scholars  that  the  system  of 
periodic  enrollments  existed  in  Egypt  under  the  Roman  Empire,  and  that 
the  period  was  fourteen  years. 

It  has  been  proved  that  enrollments  were  made  for  the  years  A.  D.  90, 
104,  118,  132,  and  so  on  till  230. 

This  would  make  periodic  years  23  B.  C,  9  B.  C,  A.  D.  6,  20,  34,  48,  62, 
etc.  In  every  case  the  actual  enumeration  began  after  the  periodic  year 
was  ended.  When  did  this  system  begin  ?  In  all  probability,  Augustus 
inaugurated  the  system.  He  was  the  emperor  who  was  most  systematic  in 
his  administration  of  the  provinces  (page  139,  seq.). 

The  documents  bring  out  two  facts  : — 

1.  In  some  parts,  at  least,  of  the  empire,  the  enrollment  and  numbering 
of  the  population  according  to  their  households  was  a  distinct  and  separate 
process  from  the  census  and  valuation,  which  previously  was  considered  to 
be  the  only  proper  Roman  kind  of  census. 

2.  The  enrollment  of  households  took  place  periodically,  in  accordance 
with  a  cycle  arranged  according  to  the  years  of  the  reign  of  Augustus  in 
Imperial,  but  not  in  Egyptian  reckoning  (page  148).  Probably  this  system 
was  introduced  later  than  18  B.  C. 

The  fact  thus  resting  upon  documentary  evidence,  that  Augustus  inaugu- 
1  Luke  ii,  2.  2  Acts  v,  37. 


AUTHOR'S  NOTES  337 

rated  a  series  of  periodic  enrollments  in  Egypt,  puts  a  new  face  upon 
Luke's  statement  concerning  the  enrollment  in  Palestine.  If  Luke  has 
blundered,  it  has  been  by  extending  to  the  entire  Roman  world  a  practice 
which  was  actually  confined  to  Egypt.  Other  considerations  lend  confirm- 
ation to  the  view  that  he  has  not  blundered,  for  there  is  evidence  to  show 
that  the  practice  was  not  confined  to  Egypt — witness  the  Apamean  stone, 
(page  151),  the  statements  of  Suidas,  and  Josephus  who  mentions  census  fig- 
ures. Moreover,  there  is  positive  evidence  that  enrollments  according  to  the 
fourteen-year  cycle  were  made  in  Syria  and  elsewhere. 

According  to  Luke,  the  first  enrollment  took  place  a  few  years  B.  c.  in 
the  unknown  year  of  Jesus'  birth. 

According  to  the  system  which  obtained  in  Egypt,  the  year  9  B.  c.  would 
be  the  beginning  of  the  second  period.  This  would  make  the  date  8  B.  C, 
as  the  census  was  intended  to  include  the  children  born  9  B.  c.  Tertullian 
declares  that  an  enrollment  was  made  by  Sentius  Saturninus,  who  was  gov- 
ernor of  Syria  9  to  7  B.  C.  Tertullian' s  statement  was  not  based  upon  Luke, 
for  it  differs  from  Luke' sand  cannot  be  easily  reconciled  with  it.  Tertullian 
adhered  to  his  secular  authority.  He  is  an  independent  witness  to  a  census 
in  the  neighborhood  of  9-7  B.  C.  The  facts  in  regard  to  the  census  were 
within  reach,  so  that  citizens  even  of  small  towns  could  be  identified.  Ter- 
tullian's  variant  statement  shows  existence  of  strong  and  independent 
authority. 

In  the  same  year,  8  B.  c,  in  which  enrollments  seem  to  have  been  made 
in  Syria  and  Egypt,  Augustus  made  a  census  and  found  the  total  number  of 
Roman  citizens  4,233,000.  A  marked  year  in  Roman  administration 
was  8  B.  c.  The  next  periodic  year  was  A.  D.  6;  census  taken  A.  D.  7. 
Quirinius  was  governor  for  the  second  time  in  A.  D.  6  and  he  held  a  great 
census  and  valuation  of  Palestine. 

Judaea  was  at  this  time  incorporated  in  the  empire  under  a  procurator 
and  connected  with  the  province  Syria.  The  great  enrollment  might  be 
explained  as  due  to  necessities  of  a  newly-organized  part  of  the  empire,  but 
the  coincidence  with  the  new  cycle  is  significant. 

The  natural  inference  from  known  facts  is  that  two  operations,  one 
corresponding  to  the  Egyptian  periodic  enrollment,  and  one  corresponding 
to  the  Egyptian  annual  census  and  valuation,  took  place  in  Palestine  in  A.D.  7. 

The  later  period  was  not  observed  by  Augustus,  probably  on  account  of 
increasing  feebleness,  until  Tiberius  was  associated  with  him  in  A.  D.  14. 
In  A.  D.  20  the  census  was  omitted  probably  on  account  of  the  one  held  in 
14.  In  34  carried  on  as  usual,  as  evidenced  by  the  action  of  Archelaos  in 
Cilicia  Tracheia.  This  time  it  created  a  disturbance  in  Cilicia.  The  next 
period  came  in  48,  and  Claudius  made  the  census. 

On  this  series  of  facts,  rests  the  presumption  that  the  Egyptian  fourteen- 
year  cycle  has  its  roots  in  a  principle  of  wider  application.  This  brings  us 
22 


338  AUTHOR'S  NOTES 

very  near  to  Luke's  statement  that  Augustus  laid  down  a  general  principle 
for  the  whole  Roman  world.  On  the  contrary,  Luke  provides  a  key  state- 
ment, which  holds  together  and  explains  and  makes  consistent  all  the  rest 
of  the  evidence.  When  Luke's  evidence  is  held  correct,  the  others  fall  into 
line  with  it  and  are  seen  to  be  the  working  out  of  one  general  principle. 
The  recorded  facts  show  a  clear  tendency  to  confirm  the  cycle. 

The  most  important  fact  is  that  we  have  clear  evidence,  quite  independent 
of  Luke,  that  the  first,  second,  and  fourth  periodic  enrollments  were  observed 
in  the  province  Syria  ;  1st  in  Tertullian,  2nd  on  the  Apamean  stone,  3rd  in 
Tacitus.     The  occurrences  are  enough  to  show  law  of  recurrence. 

The  conclusion  is  inevitable  that  "  there  was  a  system  of  periodic  enroll- 
ment in  the  province  Syria,  according  to  a  fourteen-year  cycle  (  14  in  the 
modern  expression,  15  in  Roman  form),  and  the  first  enrollment  took  place 
in  the  year  8  B.  c.  (Strictly  Syrian  year  beginning  in  the  spring  of  year, 
8  b.  c.) 

Justin  Martyr  in  his  Apol.  (  1  :  34  )  appeals  to  registers  in  support  of 
Luke. 

Herod's  position  in  Judaea,  was  a  difficult  and  delicate  one.  He  was  to 
keep  order  and  Hellenize  the  nation  under  his  control.  These  two  tasks, 
well-nigh  incompatible,  he  performed  with  great  skill,  and  a  fair  amount 
of  success.  He  conformed  so  far  as  he  could  to  Jewish  prejudices.  He  kept 
up  the  pretense  of  maintaining  Jewish  feelings.  He  maintained  heathen 
practices  for  the  heathen.  He  left  the  Jews  free.  Between  the  years  8  and 
7  B.  C,  Herod  fell  into  disgrace  with  Augustus.  The  Judsean  king's  admin- 
istration was  much  embarrassed  too,  by  his  loss  of  favor.  If  Luke's  evidence 
is  to  be  taken,  Herod  for  one  thing  was  compelled  to  take  the  census.  At 
this  time  probably,  is  to  be  dated  the  incident  of  forcing  people  to  take  oath 
of  allegiance  to  Augustus,  which  six  thousand  Pharisees  refused.  Herod 
would  naturally  try  to  avoid  the  humiliation  of  this  new  oath  and  census,  and 
would  ask  for  delay  and  would  ask  of  Saturninus  permission  to  postpone  the 
numbering  until  he  had  heard  from  Rome. 

The  message  from  Rome  was  unfavorable  and  Herod  was  ordered  to  go 
ahead  with  the  census.  A  second  embassy  was  sent  and  received  more 
favorably,  but  still  Augustus  was  obdurate  and  the  enrollment  had  to  go  on. 
These  negotiations  would  bring  the  date  of  the  enrollment  down  this  side 
of  the  year  ending  April  17,  7  B.  C. 

Another  consideration  would  cause  some  delay,  viz.  ;  Herod's  desire  to 
give  the  enrollment  a  tribal,  Jewish  character.  This  would  be  in  accord 
with  his  general  policy  and  would  make  the  task  much  easier  to  perform. 
All  who  claimed  to  be  Jews  should  go  to  their  tribal  cities  ;  all  others  would 
be  enrolled  in  their  places  of  residence.  The  probability  is  that  a  date  for 
the  enrollment  was  fixed.  The  most  probable  date  would  be  late  summer 
of  7  or  6  B.  c.     There  is  little  to  choose  so  far  as  extra  Biblical  information 


AUTHOR'S  NOTES  339 

is  concerned,  but  Luke's  data  make  it  more  probable  that  the  year  6  is  cor- 
rect. With  this  the  general  calculation  of  the  conjunction  of  Jupiter  and 
Saturn  in  Pisces  agrees.  If  this  coincidence,  to  say  the  least,  has  a  sound 
basis,  it  unites  all  the  indications  of  the  subject,  unites  Matthew  and  Luke 
and  brings  the  birth  of  Jesus  in  the  year  7-6  b.  c. 

The  last  serious  difficulty  in  the  Lukan  narrative  is  the  mention  of 
Quirinius.  Tabular  evidence  points  to  a  previous  governorship  of  Quirinius 
under  Augustus  (pages  227-8). 

According  to  Mommsen,  the  most  probable  date  for  this  previous  gov^ 
ernorship  of  Quirinius  is  3-1  B.  C.     This  date  doubly  conflicts  with  Luke. 

1.  Herod  was  dead  before  it. 

2.  The  enrollment  could  not  have  been  postponed  so  long. 

Luke  does  not  specify  the  office  held  by  Quirinius  at  the  time  of  the 
Lord's  birth.  The  word  ( — i/yefiovevovTog,  etc.)  with  its  equivalents  is  used 
for  procurator,  and  even  for  imperial  authority  in  a  province.  Hence  the 
word  employed  by  Luke  might  be  applied  to  any  Roman  official  holding  a 
leading  position  of  authority  in  a  province.  It  might  denote  some  special 
mission.  Some  authorities  have  argued  that  Luke  in  assigning  the  date 
mentions  Quirinius  who  was  at  the  time  on  a  special  mission  of  conspicuous 
importance  in  the  province.  There  are  but  four  certain  dates  in  the  life  of 
Quirinius. 

(1)  Consulship,  12  B.  c. 

(2)  Second  Governorship  of  Syria,  beginning  A.  D.  6. 

(3)  Prosecution  of  his  wife,  A.  D.  20. 

(4)  Death  and  funeral,  A.  D.  21. 
Between  (1)  and  (2)  occur  certain  events. 

(a)  He  held  office  in  Syria  and  carried  on  war  with  the  Homona- 
denses,  a  mountain  tribe  between  Phrygia,  Cilicia,  and  Lycaonia.  This 
was  a  conspicuous  service  for  which  high  honors  were  paid  him  at 
Rome. 

(b)  He  governed  Asia  after  his  first  administration  of  Syria.  For  this  we 
have  only  the  years  5-4  or  3-2  b.  c,  or  a.  d.  4-5  or  5-6.  The  probabili- 
ties are  that  the  year  4-3  B.  c,  is  the  latest  that  he  could  have  spent  in 
Syria. 

The  whole  career  of  Quirinius  is  difficult  and  elusive.  The  general 
probabilities  based  upon  his  marriage  and  divorce  bring  the  date  of  his 
administration  in  Asia  to  5-3  B.  c,  and  perhaps  earlier.  The  difficulty  pre- 
sented by  the  governorship  of  Varus,  who  ruled  Syria  from  7-4  B.  c,  can  be 
solved  only  by  supposing  that  Quirinius  was  put  in  charge  of  the  military 
force  of  Asia  for  the  subjugation  of  the  Homonadenses,  while  the  civil 
administration  was  left  to  Saturninus  and  Varus.  This  temporary  division 
of  duties  in  a  province  is  in  accordance  with  historic  analogy  (page  238). 

The  whole  argument  is  this : — 


340  AUTHOR'S  NOTES 

About  8-5  B.  c,  Augustus  made  a  great  effort  to  pacify  the  dangerous  and 
troublesome  mountaineers  of  Taurus,  in  order  to  prevent  the  continual  plun- 
dering, which  they  practiced  on  their  peaceable  neighbors.  This  required 
the  cooperation  of  all  officials  in  the  region  affected.  Military  road  systems 
were  established,  and  comprehensive  operations  began  among  the  moun- 
taineers. 

The  leader  of  this  work  was  Quirinius  as  established  by  Josephus  and 
Strabo.  The  probability  is  that  in  7  b.  c,  when  Varus  came  to  govern  Syria, 
Augustus,  in  view  of  the  great  task  before  him,  sent  a  special  officer  with  the 
usual  title,  Lieutenant  of  Augustus  (Legatus  Augusti),  to  direct  military 
operations.  Thus  Quirinius  conducted  the  war  pretty  certainly  in  6  B.  C, 
varying  a  little  either  way.  The  enrollment  of  Syria  was  delayed  until 
6  B.  C.  This  brought  it  about  that  Christ  was  born  under  the  double  gov- 
ernorship, military  and  civil,  of  Quirinius  and  Varus. 

This  explains  the  contradiction  between  Luke  and  Tertullian  who  are 
both  in  a  way  correct.  Luke's  expression  concerning  the  Hegemonia  of 
Quirinius  is  correct  and  accurate.     Thus  the  history  stands  assured. 

In  examining  the  argument  of  Trof.  Ramsay,  one  cannot  withhold  a 
tribute  of  admiration  for  the  achievement.  The  book  is  a  brilliant  tour  de 
force  of  scholarship  and  logical  acumen. 

But  we  wish  to  assure  ourselves  as  to  the  cogency  of  the  argument  as  an 
argument,  entirely  aside  from  our  admiration  for  the  work.  Certain  facts 
are  very  clear. 

I.  The  argument  does  not  amount  to  a  demonstration.  The  author  would 
be  the  first  to  acknowledge  this — indeed,  if  we  remember  correctly,  he 
expressly  states  this  fact. 

The  interpretation  of  Luke's  meaning  and  purpose,  the  setting  forth  of 
the  internal  evidences  of  care  and  accuracy,  are  very  strong  and  satisfactory. 
It  appears  at  once,  however,  that  the  chain  of  external  evidence  upon  which 
the  whole  argument  rests  is  at  best  only  probable — in  some  cases  hardly 
more  than  possible.  The  strongest  link  in  the  chain  is  the  evidence  for  a 
periodic  enrollment  throughout  the  Roman  world — one  periodic  year  of 
which  was  the  year  8  B.  C. 

From  this  point  on,  the  problem  of  adjustment  becomes  veiy  difficult. 

Luke's  statement  involves: — 

(i)   The  birth  of  Jesus  under  Herod. 

(2)  Under  Quirinius. 

(3)  In  Bethlehem  because  of  an  enrollment  ordered  by  Augustus. 

(4)  Carried  out  by  Herod. 

To  begin  with,  we  have  to  suppose  a  delay  for  a  year  or  more  in  Herod's 
compliance  with  this  order  of  Augustus.  To  me  the  most  unsubstantial 
part  of  the  whole  argument  is  the  reasoning  to  account  for  this  delay  on 


AUTHOR'S  NOTES  34 1 

Herod's  part.1  2  Next,  taking  it  for  granted  that  the  dates  may  be  adjusted, 
Quirinius  must  be  brought  into  action.  This  can  be  done  only  by  postulat- 
ing two  governorships  for  Quirinius  (one  of  which  is  seriously  questioned), 
and  in  addition  for  the  first  one  a  joint  hegemony  with  Varus  so  that  the 
contradictory  references  may  be  reconciled.  All  this  must  be  pronounced 
problematical.      It  exhibits  a  distinct  possibility,  but  little  more. 

2.  Dr.  Ramsay  has  demolished  completely  the  self-confident  dogma- 
tism which  hitherto  has  so  flippantly  discounted  Luke,  offhand.  His 
argument  has  done  one  thing  with  thoroughness  if  nothing  more.  He  has 
gone  over  the  ground  with  such  painstaking  care  and  picked  up  every  shred 
of  evidence  with  such  keenness  of  vision  that  he  has  exhibited  with  rare 
vividness  the  extreme  difficulty  of  arriving  at  certain  conclusions  concerning 
details  of  provincial  government  during  the  era  of  Augustus.  One  might  as 
well  be  dogmatic  on  the  social  conditions  of  the  opposite  side  of  the  moon. 

Prof.  Ramsay  has  certainly  made  tenable  the  position  taken  in  the  text, 
that  Luke's  account  shows  indubitable  evidence  of  the  presence  of  the  his- 
toric spirit ;  that  he  meant  to  write  history  with  care  and  accuracy ;  that  he 
made  the  statement  of  the  Gospel,  concerning  the  circumstances  under 
which  Jesus  was  born,  on  the  basis  of  authority  which  he  had  good  reason 
to  trust. 

One  may  believe,  if  he  chooses,  that  the  statement  involves  an  error,  but 
the  case  is  by  no  means  clear  and  we  cannot  be  accused  of  credulity  if 
we  loyally  accept  his  statements  as  historically  trustworthy.3 

We  agree  with  Bishop  Gore  when  he  says  :  "  It  seems  to  me  especially  in 
view  of  the  deficiency  of  historical  authorities  for  the  period,  that  we  dis- 
play an  exaggerated  skepticism  if  we  deny  that  so  well-informed  a  writer  as 
St.  Luke  may  have  been  quite  correct  in  ascribing  the  movement  to  Bethle- 
hem of  Joseph  and  Mary  to  some  necessity  connected  with  a  'census'  of 
Juda:a  which  Herod  was  supplying  at  the  demand  of  Augustus."  (Gore: 
Dissertations,  p.  21  ;  see  also  note  on  same  page.) 

The  vexed  problem  of  the  census  is  an  exceedingly  tempting  subject.     It 

1  Such  a  delay  in  the  carrying  out  of  a  decree  is  not,  however,  without  historic 
parallel.  The  royal  decree  for  the  secularization  of  the  California  Missions  was 
passed  Sept.  13,  1813,  but  was  not  published  in  California  until  Jan.  20,  1821. 
See  James:  The  Old  Afissions  of  California,  p.  88. 

2  Ramsay  himself  realizes  this  weakness  in  his  argument,  and  in  the  Ex- 
positor, vol.  iv,  pp.  321-328  he  meets  it.  His  last  word  is  not  yet  spoken  on 
the  subject. 

3  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  reviewers  of  Prof.  Ramsay's  book  are  practi- 
cally a  unit  in  holding  that,  while  he  has  not  demonstrated  his  point,  he 
certainly  has  advanced  the  whole  discussion  to  a  new  stage  and  made  the 
historical  accuracy  of  Luke  much  more  probable  (see  review  by  Shailer 
Mathews  in  Biblical  World,  vol.  xiii,  p.  282). 


342  AUTHOR'S  NOTES 

is  sufficiently  obscure  to  be  fascinating.  The  literature  is  vast  and  learned, 
and  the  scholars  who  have  contended  on  both  sides  many  and  great.  It 
seems  to  me  clearly  possible  to  overestimate  the  importance  of  the  question. 
If  Luke  made  a  mistake  in  connecting  the  birth  of  Jesus  with  the  enroll- 
ment, it  might  affect  one's  estimate  of  Luke's  general  standing  as  an  his- 
torian, but  it  does  not  touch  the  particular  point  of  the  place  of  Christ's 
birth,  and  the  seriousness  of  the  question  is  materially  lessened  when  we 
realize  that  there  are  degrees  in  the  mistake  which  is  to  be  attributed  to 
Luke.  Unless  it  is  proved  that  the  census  statement  as  a  whole  is  a  pure 
invention,  in  order  to  change  the  place  of  birth  to  Bethlehem,  the  historical 
trustworthiness  of  the  narrative  will  not  seriously  be  impaired  (Machen, 
P.  R.,  Oct.,  1905,  Jan.,  1906).  The  same  writer  is  clearly  right  when  he 
says  :  "  It  is  just  this  that  has  not  been  proved.  On  the  contrary,  it  seems 
unlikely  that  the  author  should  have  put  all  this  imperial  machinery  in 
motion,  and  thus  exposed  himself  to  easy  refutation,  in  order  to  accomplish 
what  might  have  been  easily  accomplished  by  a  simpler  expedient  and  one 
which  would  have  been  less  ignominious  to  the  Messianic  King."  He 
says  also  and  truly  :  "  If  the  note  about  the  census  be  conceived  of  as  the 
result  of  a  mere  blunder,  we  need  not  necessarily  give  up  the  general  trust- 
•worthiness  of  the  account.  It  all  depends  upon  the  nature  of  the  blunder." 

That  this  opens  up  an  interesting  field  of  speculation  will  be  seen  from 
the  following  citations:  Schmiedel  says,  "Quirinius  was  governor  of 
Syria  A.  D.  6,  ten  years  after  this  time.  The  most  plausible  explanation 
suggested  is,  perhaps,  that  Quirinius  was  twice  governor  of  Syria,  but  there 
is  no  direct  and  scarcely  any  indirect  evidence  to  justify  the  belief.  There 
is  no  proof  that  Mary's  presence  was  obligatory.1  That  St.  Luke  invented 
such  an  enrollment  is  impossible,  but  that  he  antedated  it  is  highly  probable. 

"  Making  or  revising  a  compilation  toward  the  close  of  the  first  century,  he 
might  consider  that  the  enrollment  supplied  an  answer  to  the  difficult 
question  :  '  How  came  the  parents  of  Jesus  to  Bethlehem  at  the  time  of 
the  birth?  '  "  This  carries  us  a  definite  stage  forward.  Luke  did  not  invent 
the  enrollment — he  simply  misplaced  it.  If  he  did  not  invent  the  enroll- 
ment, in  all  probability,  he  did  not  invent  the  incident  of  the  Bethlehem 
birth.  He  certainly  would  not  invent  an  incident,  which  presented  him 
with  so  difficult  a  question  that  he  had  to  invent  a  second  incident  to  account 
for  the  incident  he  had  just  invented.  Nay  more,  he  would  not  have  lightly 
accepted  an  incident  which  thrust  a  difficult  question  upon  him.  If  he  could 
have  denied  the  incident  involving  so  serious  a  difficulty,  he  would  have  done 
so  rather  than  resort  to  such  a  desperate  expedient  as  inventing  or  perverting 
an  historic  event  to  account  for  it.  It  is  impossible  to  put  forward  a  motive 
which  would  induce  Luke  to  accept  a  loosely  accredited  fable  involving  a 
serious  difficulty,  which  he  had  to  meet  and  satisfy.  The  more  we  empha- 
1  Does  Luke  say  that  it  was  ?   See  Ramsay  on  the  argument. 


AUTHOR'S  NOTES  343 

size  the  "blunder"  involved  in  the  reference  to  the  enrollment,  the  more 
certain  we  make  it  that  the  incident  in  Jesus'  life  which  he  records  must 
have  had  good  backing.  This  is  more  clearly  brought  out  by  Holtzmann 
(L.  J.  Eng.  Tr.,  p.  87).  He  holds  that  there  is  no  escape  from  the  Quirinius 
difficulty.  He  says  :  "  Luke's  purpose  in  introducing  the  census  of  Quirinius 
is,  of  course,  perfectly  plain.  He  knew  that  Jesus'  parents  belonged  to 
Nazareth,  and  he  is  seeking  for  some  reason  which  might  occasion  the 
journey  to  Bethlehem.  But,  in  point  of  fact,  he  could  use  it  for  this  purpose 
only  because  he  associated  with  it  an  entirely  false  conception  as  to  the 
course  of  Roman  procedure  on  such  occasions."  Admitting  this  last  state- 
ment, we  have  this  fact  before  us.  Luke  knew  that  the  family  of  Jesus 
came  from  Nazareth,  and  that  He  was  known  commonly  as  a  Nazarene. 
Knowing  this  he  must  have  believed,  unless  he  had  definite  information  to 
the  contrary,  that  Jesus  was  born  where  He  lived.  With  this  belief  in  his 
mind,  he  must  have  had  especially  authoritative  information  to  make  him 
change  his  mind  and  become  so  strongly  convinced  of  the  Bethlehem  birth 
that  he  even  undertook  to  move  the  machinery  of  the  Roman  Empire  to 
bring  about  the  event.  To  take  so  much  trouble,  he  must  have  been  deeply 
convinced  of  the  occurrence — such  a  mental  condition  could  not  have  been 
brought  about  by  any  unauthenticated  rumor.  It  must  have  been  excellent 
authority.  Whether  Luke  blundered  or  not  in  his  historical  reference,  there 
is  every  reason  to  believe  that  the  event  occurred  as  he  said  that  it  occurred. 
The  burden  of  proof  lies  with  those  who  deny,  and  the  burden  is  no  light  one. 
They  must  prove  the  historical  blunder  first — and  then  the  biographical 
next.     The  two  are  not  one.     The  first  does  not  involve  the  second. 


NOTE  D 
Christ's  birth  and  the  messianic  hope 

The  Messianic  Hope  of  the  Jews  has  been  treated  recently  in  a  novel  and 
interesting  way  by  Prof.  Shailer  Mathews  of  the  Chicago  University.  Prof. 
Mathews  states  the  essential  conclusions  to  which  his  investigations  have 
led  in  the  following  words  :  "  An  impartial  comparison  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment literature  with  the  contemporary  and  immediately  preceding  literature 
of  Judaism  shows  an  essential  identity  in  the  general  scheme  of  the 
Messianic  Hope  ....  The  New  Testament  literature  modifies  this 
general  scheme  only  as  it  is  compelled  so  to  do  by  the  actual  events  con- 
nected with  the  life  of  Jesus. 

"  Thus  it  recognizes  that  the  Christ  has  suffered  and  died,  and  that  His 
death  is  vicarious.  Its  belief  in  the  Resurrection  is  no  longer  a  theory,  but  a 
generalization  of  the  fact  in  Jesus'  own  career.  Its  understanding  of  a  per- 
sonal Christ  is  now  supplemented  by  a  knowledge  of  the  historical  career  of 
Jesus  as  a  preacher  and  exponent  of  divine  love  as  well  as  sovereignty. 
The  new  Christianity  also  magnifies  the  Spirit — the  actual  interpenetration 
of  the  divine  and  human  personalities."      (Page  317. ) 

Taking  it  for  granted  that  the  author  is  correct  in  his  exposition  of  the 
relationship  between  the  old  and  the  new  in  the  New  Testament  faith,  the 
place  of  the  birth  of  Christ  (although  the  author  does  not  treat  it  systemati- 
cally) in  the  historical  process  which  he  unfolds,  is  very  evident.  The 
mode  of  the  Messiah's  entrance  into  the  world,  and  the  method  by  which 
His  organic  connection  with  the  race  was  accomplished  would  constitute  a 
problem  for  solution  along  with  the  other  facts  of  His  life,  such  as  His  suffer- 
ings, death,  and  resurrection.  In  the  Gospels,  we  have  the  historic  facts  of 
His  death  and  resurrection  stated  without  comment,  in  the  one  case  other 
than  the  prophetic  words  of  Jesus  pointing  to  a  deep  and  hidden  significance 
in  His  coming  death  ;  and  in  the  other,  the  profound  relief  and  joy  of  the  dis- 
ciples at  finding  Him  alive  after  His  passion.  In  neither  case  is  the  full 
doctrinal  significance  of  the  historic  fact  worked  out  in  the  Gospels.  In  the 
Apostolic  preaching  recorded  at  the  beginning  of  the  Acts,  we  have  the 
Resurrection  historically  considered  as  a  vindication  of  Christ's  Messiahship, 
and  a  divine  confounding  of  the  counsels  of  wicked  men  ;  but  even  yet  the 
doctrinal  implication  of  the  death  and  resurrection  are  not  fully  unfolded.  It 
344 


AUTHOR'S  NOTES  345 

is  only  when  we  come  to  the  Epistles  of  Peter  and  Paul  that  we  find  that  the 
death  of  Christ  has  become  the  foundation  of  a  doctrine  of  the  Atonement; 
and  the  Resurrection,  the  corner  stone  of  positive  teaching  concerning  the 
last  things.  We  are  thus  enabled  to  see  the  gradual  process  by  which  the 
great  historic  facts  of  the  death  and  resurrection  of  Jesus  were  finally 
wrought  into  the  structure  of  faith,  modifying  the  inherited  Messianism  of 
the  disciples  so  vitally  that  it  became  practically  a  new  religion.1 

In  the  first  and  third  Gospels,  the  mode  of  Christ's  birth  is  stated  as  a 
historical  fact  and  in  that  simple  form  of  narrative  statement  it  is  allowed  to 
stand.  The  real  problem  in  connection  with  the  whole  matter  of  Christ's 
birth  is  not  the  form  of  the  historic  statement,  but  the  lack  of  doctrinal 
unfolding  in  the  rest  of  the  New  Testament. 

It  is  clearly  evident  that  an  authoritative  statement  concerning  the  cir- 
cumstances of  the  Saviour's  birth,  would  at  some  time  become  inevitable. 
One  of  the  mooted  questions  of  the  time  was  :  '*  How  should  the  Messiah 
come,  and  in  what  form  should  He  be  manifested?  " 

It  is  also  evident  that  the  actual  historical  mode  of  the  Saviour's  appear- 
ance would  be  likely  to  modify  the  inherited  Messianism  of  the  disciples 
quite  as  much,  proportionately,  as  any  other  of  the  facts  for  which  they  had 
to  make  room  in  their  scheme. 

It  is  also  to  be  noticed  that  one  tenacious  feature  of  contemporary  Jewish 
expectation  was  that  the  Messiah  should  be  manifested  suddenly  and 
unexpectedly,  in  some  striking  and  spectacular  way.  In  the  passage  from 
John  (  vii,  27  )  already  commented  upon,  we  have  the  most  unmistakable 
evidence  of  this  contemporary  interest  in  the  mode  of  the  Saviour's  birth. 
Certain  of  the  Jews  were  always  troubled  by  the  fact  that  Jesus  belonged  to 
the  household  of  Joseph  and  Mary,  and  acknowledged  them  as  parents.  It 
thus  becomes  certain  that  sooner  or  later  the  writers  of  the  life  of  Christ 
would  be  compelled  to  make  clear  and  definite  answer  to  the  question  con- 
cerning the  manner  of  His  birth.  And  being  compelled  to  this  by  the 
thrust  of  actual  controversy,  they  would  naturally  be  at  great  pains  to  have 
the  facts  well  in  hand.  Indeed,  it  would  seem  that  in  view  of  the  universal 
interest  in  the  cardinal  question  of  the  Messiah's  advent,  greater  pains  would 
be  taken  in  this  portion  of  His  life  than  almost  any  other.  Moreover,  it 
would  seem  to  be  equally  clear  that  the  inherited  notions  of  the  disciples 
would  be  molded  as  in  other  cases  by  the  impact  upon  their  minds  of  the 
actual  facts  of  Jesus'  life.  Inherited  conceptions,  at  least  among  the  Jews, 
are  too  strongly  held  to  be  set  aside  at  the  bidding  of  loosely  accredited 
myths  or  fables.  There  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  the  expectations  of 
the  disciples  would  differ  greatly  from  those  of  their  contemporaries  who, 

1  The  Epistles  of  Paul  were,  of  course,  in  point  of  composition,  earlier  than 
the  Synoptic  Gospels  as  we  have  them  ;  but  they  represent  a  maturer  phase  of 
doctrine. 


346  AUTHOR'S  NOTES 

looking  for  a  glorious  Messiah,  looked  also  for  His  glorious  advent  in 
dignity  and  power.  They  were  expecting  a  Messiah  who  should  appear 
suddenly  in  a  blaze  of  splendor,  and  whose  origin  should  be  veiled  in 
mystery.  At  the  very  least,  they  would  expect  the  circumstances  of  His 
coming  to  be  in  harmony  with  the  exalted  character  of  His  personality,  and 
the  dignity  of  His  divine  mission. 

In  the  absence  of  authoritative  information,  the  unrestrained  fancy  of  the 
disciples  might  easily  have  run  along  some  such  line  as  that  of  the  men 
who  said  :  "When  Messiah  cometh,  no  one  knoweth  whence  He  is."  It 
may  be  said  that  this  tendency  would  have  been  restrained  by  the  evident 
fact  that  He  had  belonged  to  a  Galilaean  household,  and  that  there  had  been 
about  Him  people  who  claimed  to  be  His  kinsfolk ;  besides,  the  Messiah 
was  to  be  the  son  of  David.  All  this  is  true,  but  it  would  have  been  per- 
fectly easy  in  the  absence  of  authoritative  information  and  in  an  atmosphere 
of  vagueness  and  uncertainty,  which  must  be  postulated  as  the  basis  of  any 
legendary  interpretation  of  the  narrative,  to  state  that  Jesus  did  not  really 
belong  to  the  family  of  Nazareth  ;  that  His  origin  was  wholly  miraculous, 
and  that  both  Joseph  and  Mary  were  His  foster  parents.  It  would  have 
been  in  harmony  with  current  expectations  to  say:  "The  real  kinships  of 
the  Messiah  are  in  heaven.  He  is  to  be  manifested,  not  born."  Why  was 
it  necessary  to  imply  a  birth  at  all  ?  The  conception  of  a  virgin  birth  is  a  com- 
plicated invention  compared  with  the  simple  device  of  a  totally  miraculous 
origin.  To  this  reasoning,  there  is  but  one  satisfactory  answer — that  there 
were  at  hand,  when  the  narratives  were  written,  so  many  who  knew  that 
Jesus  was  born  of  Mary  and  had  grown  up  in  her  home  from  childhood  that 
such  an  invention  would  have  been  impossible.  This  answer  is  fatal  to  the 
negative  position  in  general  ;  for  the  person  or  persons  who  knew  so  much 
were  close  enough  to  reliable  sources  of  information  to  know  whether  the 
narrative  of  Jesus'  conception  and  birth,  as  related  in  the  Gospels,  was  fact 
or  fiction.  The  wholesale  invention  of  a  completely  miraculous  entrance 
into  the  world,  without  the  embarrassing  circumstances  of  birth  and  infancy, 
would  have  been  more  natural  to  Jewish  Messianists  than  the  miraculous 
birth  from  Mary  ;  and  the  statement  of  this  belief  with  the  skill  and  grace 
which  mark  the  Infancy  narratives  of  the  Gospel  would,  with  many  people, 
have  lent  tremendous  force  to  the  argument  for  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus 
drawn  from  His  lofty  and  mysterious  origin.  The  claim  of  Davidic  descent, 
which  itself  involved  a  controversial  question  of  no  little  difficulty,1  might 
have  rested,  then  as  now,  upon  the  foster  fatherhood  of  Joseph,  or  upon  a 
spiritual  interpretation  of  the  promise. 

In  contradistinction  to  all  this,  the  narrative  as  it  now  exists  in  its  totality 
— virgin  birth  and  all,  in  spirit,  atmosphere,  and  details  is  the  very  last  thing 
that  an  imaginative  Jewish  Messianist  would  have  invented.  The  story  in 
1  See  Matt,  xxii,  41-46. 


AUTHOR'S  NOTES  347 

both  sections  implies  such  weakness,  poverty,  and  obscurity  on  the  part 
of  the  family  that  the  further  fact  stated  that  the  child  had  been  miraculously 
conceived,  which  in  the  form  given  to  it  had  its  own  peculiar  element  of 
offense,  could  afford  very  little  relief. 

We  are  thus  logically  forced,  in  the  absence  of  a  paramount  motive  for 
their  invention,  to  the  position  that  in  the  statements  of  the  first  and  third 
Gospels  we  have,  as  in  the  other  statements  concerning  the  teaching,  death, 
and  resurrection  of  Christ,  the  inherited  Messianic  conceptions  of  the  dis- 
ciples modified  by  contact  with  the  actual  facts  in  the  life  of  the  historic 
Jesus. 

But,  this  being  so,  why  did  the  fact  receive  no  doctrinal  unfolding  such 
as  was  accorded  to  the  death  and  resurrection  of  Jesus?  In  the  light  of 
the  actual  experience  of  the  disciples,  this  problem  solves  itself.  At  the 
beginning  of  their  ministry,  after  the  Resurrection  had  taken  place,  the 
Resurrection  itself  was  the  supreme  fact  of  their  entire  lives.  Their  first 
preaching  was  "Jesus  and  the  Resurrection" — the  supreme  Personality 
and  the  incident  in  His  career,  which  had  done  most  to  make  Him  as  such 
known  to  them.  Then,  step  by  step,  they  were  led  back  from  the  Resur- 
rection to  the  death  that  preceded  it ;  from  the  death  to  the  life  of  which  it 
was  the  issue.  Chronologically  first — the  birth  of  Jesus,  logically,  in  the 
unfolding  of  their  thought,  came  last.  The  origin  of  the  Messiah  was  one 
problem  among  others,  and  not  the  most  immediately  pressing.  It  was  only 
when  the  life,  as  a  life,  was  being  written  that  the  necessity  of  stating  the 
facts  as  to  the  origin  of  Jesus  became  urgent. 

It  is  also  true  that  the  doctrinal  implications  of  the  miraculous  birth  are 
not  so  evident  nor  so  far  reaching  as  those  of  His  death  and  resurrection. 
It  was  the  peculiar  controversial  situation  in  the  second  century  which  gave 
such  doctrinal  importance  to  the  question  of  Jesus'  origin. 

Paul's  peculiar  experience  led  him  to  place  such  emphasis  upon  the 
resurrection  of  Christ  and  upon  His  death  as  connected  therewith,  as  well- 
nigh  to  eclipse  all  other  facts  in  the  life  of  Jesus.  Besides,  his  career  as  a 
theologian  was  in  all  probability  cut  short  by  the  catastrophe  of  His  martyr- 
dom. 

In  the  case  of  John,  the  center  of  controversy  had  shifted.  The  compre- 
hensive and  vital  question  of  the  Incarnation  was  at  stake;  and  in  the  general 
battle  for  the  reality  of  the  Lord's  life  in  the  flesh,  which  involved  the  his- 
toric faith  as  a  whole,  all  minor  questions  of  faith  under  the  general  con- 
tention were  lost  sight  of.  The  question  of  the  miraculous  birth  does  not 
definitely  arise. 

We  are  thus  enabled  to  see  why  the  historic  fact  stated  in  the  first  and 
third  Gospels  was  not  doctrinally  developed  in  the  later  New  Testament. 
This  was  not  due  to  the  disbelief  of  the  disciples  in  it.  The  silence  of  the 
writers  of  the  other  New  Testament  books  is  evidence  enough  of  this. 


S 


348  AUTHOR'S  NOTES 

None  of  the  men  of  the  New  Testament  ever  hesitated  to  antagonize  beliefs 
which  they  did  not  share.  Had  the  question  of  the  Lord's  birth  become 
a  controversial  one  in  the  time  of  John  or  Paul,  an  authoritative  statement, 
other  than  those  of  Matthew  and  Luke  which  carried  the  assent  of  the 
teachers  of  the  church,  would  have  been  issued  by  some  one  of  them.  Had 
there  been  any  authorized  teaching  opposed  to  Matthew  and  Luke  it  would 
inevitably  have  been  appealed  to  in  subsequent  controversy.  Nor  was  it 
because  they  did  not  know  it.  The  relationship  between  Paul  and  Luke 
makes  it  practically  impossible  to  believe  that  he  was  not  aware  of  a  cardinal 
fact  in  the  life  of  Jesus  which  Luke  took  so  seriously.  The  argument  from 
silence  is  useless  when,  as  in  the  present  instance,  a  good  reason  for  the 
omission  of  statements  can  be  adduced. 

The  entire  logical  outcome  of  Prof.  Mathews'  studies,  so  far  as  they  bear 
on  our  theme,  is  to  reinforce  our  faith  that  the  Infancy  narratives  are  an 
integral  and  congruous  part  of  the  New  Testament  history. 


NOTE  E 

THE  APOSTLES'  CREED 

The  controversy  concerning  the  Apostles'  Creed,  which  is  really  responsible 
for  recent  interest  in  the  Infancy  narratives,  is  full  of  interest  for  the  student 
of  early  Christian  history  and  involves  many  questions  of  vital  import. 

Prof.  Harnack's  work,  "The  Apostles'  Creed,"  1892  (Eng.  Tr.)  was 
met  and  in  many  important  points  answered  by  Prof.  Swete  of  Cambridge 
(the  Apostles'  Creed).  The  results  of  the  controversy  and  of  other  studies 
of  the  subject  are  seen  in  an  interesting  way  in  a  thoughtful  volume  by 
Prof.  McGiffert  of  Union  Theological  Seminary  on  the  "Apostles'  Creed,  Its 
Origin,  Its  Purpose,  and  Its  Historical  Interpretation."1 

Certain  aspects  of  Prof.  McGiffert's  discussion  have,  of  course,  a  bearing 
upon  the  question  of  Jesus'  birth. 

According  to  the  author,  the  Old  Roman  Symbol  of  which  our  creed  is  a 
modified  version,  took  its  rise  in  the  last  quarter  of  the  second  century,  and 
was  framed  to  meet  certain  specific  difficulties  and  errors  which  were  then 
current.  The  assertion  which  it  contains,  that  Jesus  Christ  was  born  of  a 
woman,  was  crucified,  dead,  and  buried,  and  rose  again,  and  that  it  was  the 
crucified  One  who  ascended  into  heaven,  repudiates  the  entire  docetic  con- 
ception which  made  a  phantom  of  Christ's  human  life. 

The  origin  of  the  symbol  in  this  controversy  accounts  for  the  emphasis 
which  it  places  upon  the  virgin  birth,  and  its  corresponding  neglect  of  the 
Baptism.  The  docetic  teachers  laid  great  emphasis  upon  the  baptism  of 
Jesus,  not  only  as  the  formal  inauguration  of  His  ministry,  but  also  as  the 
definite  moment  when  the  eternal  Christ  came  down  upon  the  man  Jesus 
in  the  temporary  union  which  they  imagined  to  have  subsisted  during  His 
ministry.  The  orthodox  teachers  met  this  attack  by  minimizing  the  Baptism, 
which  consequently  appears  in  no  early  symbol,  and  giving  corresponding 
emphasis  to  the  virgin  birth. 

So  far  as  the  framer  of  the  symbol  is  concerned,  the  dominant  interest  in 
the  statement  concerning  the  birth  of  Jesus  lay  in  its  reality  rather  than  in  its 
miraculousness. 

This  statement  serves  to  bring  out  clearly  the  fact  elsewhere  insisted  upon, 

1  Charles  Scribner's  Sons,  1902. 

349 


350  AUTHOR'S  NOTES 

that  the  first  attacks  upon  the  Infancy  documents  were  due  quite  as  much  to 
a  bias  against  their  emphasis  upon  the  human  element  in  the  origin  of 
Christ  as  to  their  insistence  and  emphasis  upon  the  divine. 

Prof.  McGiffert's  conclusions  as  to  the  date  of  the  belief  in  the  virgin 
birth  are  interesting.  "  The  belief  in  the  virgin  birth,  though  certainly  not 
common  in  the  earliest  days,  had  become  widespread  before  the  end  of  the 
first  century,  as  is  shown  by  the  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Luke,  and  the 
Epistles  of  Ignatius,  and  was  a  part  of  the  general  faith  of  the  church  before 
the  Old  Roman  Symbol  was  framed." 

What  the  author  means  by  the  "earliest  times"  will  appear  from  the 
following  statement :  "  It  contains  the  virgin  birth,  which  was  believed  at 
a  comparatively  early  day,  to  be  sure,  but  certainly  did  not  constitute  a  part 
of  the  original  preaching  of  the  disciples." 

That  the  virgin  birth  did  not  form  a  part  of  the  early  preaching  of  the 
disciples  is  probably  correct,  but  it  ought  clearly  to  be  recognized  that  the 
evidence  is  by  no  means  conclusive,  and  that  the  bearing  of  the  fact  upon 
the  general  argument  is  by  no  means  what  is  often  claimed  for  it. 

The  evidence  supplied  by  the  Gospel  of  Mark  and  the  discourses  in  the 
first  part  of  the  Acts  is  too  scanty  to  base  anything  but  the  most  general 
conclusions  upon.  We  are  still  a  long  way  from  certainty  on  the  details  of 
the  disciples'  preaching. 

Moreover,  the  preaching  of  the  disciples  is  not  decisive  testimony  as  to 
their  beliefs.  There  was  much  in  their  early  faith  that  was  only  gradually 
unfolded  in  their  teaching.  The  belief  in  the  virgin  birth  emerges  into  the 
sub-apostolic  age  with  the  marks  of  authority  strongly  upon  it.1  So  far  as 
we  can  judge,  only  a  few  heretics  contested  it,  and  they  upon  doctrinal  and 
not  historical  grounds.2 

Prof.  McGiffert  says  also:  "The  early  stages  of  the  belief  we  cannot 
trace.  It  can  hardly  have  originated  with  Matthew  or  Luke,  upon  the  basis 
of  whose  statements  it  became  a  part  of  the  faith  of  the  church — for  it  does 
not  dominate  nor  does  it  even  color  their  story  of  Christ's  life.  In  fact  it 
stands  entirely  isolated  in  both  Gospels." 

With  some  modification,  this  statement  stands,  and  the  bearing  of  the  fact 
upon  the  general  argument  should  not  be  overlooked.  It  clearly  demon- 
strates that  at  the  time  of  the  formation  of  the  documents,  and  in  the  minds 
of  the  persons  responsible  for  them,  there  was  no  dogmatic  bias  which  could 
account  for  the  invention  of  the  story.  That  the  evangelists  made  no  doc- 
trinal use  of  the  fact  shows  that  their  interest  in  it  was  predominantly  his- 
toric. It  seems  perfectly  clear  that  the  evangelists  did  not  altogether 
recognize  the  bearing  of  the  fact,  which  they  had  stated  concerning  Christ's 
birth,  upon  Christian  doctrine,  and  did  not  know  exactly  what  to  do  with  it. 

1  See  Gore,  Dissert.,  pp.  41-54. 

2  Nash :  Hist.  Criticism  of  N.  T.,  p.  30. 


A  UTHOR  '  S  NO  TES  3  5  I 

In  fact,  it  required  the  controversies  of  a  later  age  to  bring  out  the  sig- 
nificance of  the  historic  fact  of  Christ's  supernatural  birth. 

In  the  second  century,  the  Infancy  narrative  formed  one  of  the  chief  bul- 
warks against  heresies  which  might  easily  have  overwhelmed  the  church. 
The  inestimable  value  of  the  Infancy  narratives  in  these  later  controversies 
may  be  seen  in  a  very  simple  and  graphic  way. 

Prof.  McGiffert  calls  attention  to  the  evident  fact  that  while  the  prepo- 
sition £K  was  used  in  the  Old  Roman  Symbol  and  by  Ignatius,  did  was 
used  by  Justin  Martyr  and  e/c  again  by  Irenaeus  and  Tertullian.  Either 
preposition  might  be  used  to  represent  the  fact  stated  in  the  Gospels  that 
Jesus  was  begotten  by  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  change,  how- 
ever, from  the  one  to  the  other,  shows  clearly  the  progress  of  the  controversy. 
The  statements  of  the  Roman  Symbol  were  carefully  made  to  combat  the 
teachings  of  the  docetists  who  denied  the  reality  of  the  Lord's  earthly 
and  physical  life.  Hence  they  used  etc  to  emphasize  the  reality  of  Jesus' 
physical  derivation  from  Mary.  Justin  Martyr,  however,  was  interested  in 
emphasizing  the  Deity  and  the  preexistence  of  Christ.  He  therefore  used 
the  preposition  did  to  indicate  the  character  of  Mary's  mediative  agency  in 
bringing  into  the  world  the  divine  and  preexistent  Christ. 

In  Tertullian' s  time,  the  teaching  of  Marcion,  who  also  phantomized  the 
Lord's  human  life,  had  become  a  menace  to  the  faith.  He,  therefore,  refuses 
to  use  did  and  returns  to  ek.  The  broad  and  simple  statements  of  the  Gos- 
pels were  so  admirably  adapted  to  the  defense  of  the  faith  against  attacks 
either  upon  the  deity  or  the  humanity  of  the  Lord,  that  it  is  difficult  to 
see  how  the  church  could  have  met  those  subtle  attacks  from  both  sides 
without  them. 

In  one  point,  I  am  compelled  to  differ  seriously  from  the  author's  view. 
In  supporting  the  statement,  which  is  certainly  demonstrable  on  other 
grounds,  that  the  Infancy  narrative  and  the  Logos  doctrine  had  a  different 
origin,  he  says:  "For  what  we  have  in  Matthew  and  Luke  is  not  the 
incarnation  of  a  preexistent  being,  but  the  origin  of  a  new  being.  It  is 
not  that  the  Holy  Spirit  (or  the  Logos)  passes  through  the  womb  of  Mary 
and  thus  becomes  man,  but  that  the  Holy  Spirit  unites  with  Mary  in  pro- 
ducing a  new  person,  Jesus  Christ."  This  statement  of  an  alleged  contra- 
diction between  the  belief  in  the  miraculous  birth  of  the  Infancy  narratives 
and  the  belief  in  the  Incarnation  of  the  preexistent  Logos  of  John  involves 
a  fundamental  misunderstanding  of  both  doctrines. 

Incidentally,  it  should  be  said  that  the  confusion  or  identification  of  the 
Logos  and  the  Holy  Spirit  is  an  ancient  heresy,  and  is  in  line  neither  with 
the  Infancy  documents  (whose  use  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  impersonal),  nor 
with  John  who  clearly  distinguishes  between  Christ  (Logos  Incarnate)  and 
the   Holy  Spirit  who  came  upon  Him  with  power  at  the  Baptism. 

Furthermore,  the  doctrine  of  the  Incarnation  of  the  preexistent  Christ,  as 


352  AUTHOR'S  NOTES 

taught  by  John  and  accepted  by  Paul,  does  not  mean  that  the  Logos  simply 
passed  through  the  womb  of  Mary  without  undergoing  radical  and  perma- 
nent change  by  that  experience.  The  phrase  of  John,  "Becoming  flesh," 
means  far  more  than  a  mere  passing  through  in  order  to  become  man.  Also, 
and  with  special  emphasis,  the  doctrine  of  the  miraculous  birth  does  not 
mean  that  the  Holy  Spirit  united  with  Mary  in  producing  a  new  person. 
Nor  did  the  authors  of  the  Infancy  sections  mean  to  affirm  any  such  thing. 
Combine  Matthew's  use  of  the  Immanuel  passage  and  his  interpretation  of 
the  realization  of  ancient  theocratic  hopes  in  the  newborn  king  (especially 
his  quotation  from  Micah  in  which  the  Ruler  is  spoken  of,  whose  goings 
forth  have  been  of  old,  from  eternity),  with  the  words  put  by  Luke  into 
the  mouths  of  the  angels  that  the  Child  was  Christ  the  Lord,  who  should 
be  called  the  Son  of  the  Highest;  and  we  have  a  conception  of  the  dignity 
and  greatness  of  the  Babe,  the  implication  of  which  carries  us  well  on 
toward  the  idea  of  the  preexistent  Lord  of  John  and  Paul.  The  Chris- 
tology  of  the  Infancy  sections  is  Jewish  and  undeveloped,  but  it  involves  far 
more  than  the  origination  of  a  new  person  by  whatever  agency. 

One  distinguished  scholar  thinks  that  this  is  just  the  vital  point  of  differ- 
ence between  the  theory  of  natural  generation  and  the  historic  theory  of 
supernatural  generation;  viz.,  that  the  former  involves  the  origination  of  a 
new  person  in  distinction  to  the  creation  of  a  new  nature.  He  says  :  "  Do 
not  we  inevitably  associate  with  the  ordinary  process  of  generation  the 
production  of  a  new  personality  ?  Must  not  the  denial  of  the  virgin  birth 
involve  the  position  that  Jesus  was  simply  a  new  human  person  in  whatever 
specially  intimate  relations   with  God  ?  "  1 

However  this  may  be,  the  Infancy  documents  do  not  teach  the  creation 
of  a  new  person. 

The  special  implication  of  these  documents  is  that  the  human  nature  of 
Jesus  was  a  special,  divine  creation  mediated  through  the  maternal  agency 
of  Mary.  It  is  certainly  true  that  Matthew  and  Luke  held  to  a  belief  in  a 
real  birth  and  beginning  of  life  to  the  historical  Being  whom  they  knew  as 
Jesus  the  Christ.  They  must  have  done  so,  for  whatever  theory  one  holds 
as  to  the  person  of  Christ,  it  is  historically  true  that  the  person  known  as 
Jesus  Christ  began  to  be  in  embryo  at  His  conception  and  actually  at  His 
birth. 

The  Gospel  narratives  affirm  that  this  beginning  was  due  to  a  special  crea- 
tive act.  Matthew  and  Luke  imply  that  by  the  agency  of  God  through  the 
virgin  Mary,  a  new  beginning  was  made  in  Jesus  Who  was  born  at  Bethle- 
hem. 

But  so  also  and  no  less  do  John  and  Paul  imply  a  new  beginning  in  Jesus. 
For,  when  John  says  that  the  preexistent  Word  became  flesh  and  dwelt 
among  us,  and  when  Paul  says  that  the  exalted  Lord  was  made  of  a  woman, 
1  Gore,  Dissert.,  pp.  64,  5. 


AUTHOR'S  NOTES  353 

both  imply  a  change  on  the  part  of  the  one  becoming  and  being  made,  a 
birth,  a  beginning  in  humanity.  So  far,  they  are  in  harmony  with  the 
authors  of  the  Infancy  sections  ;  but  they  go  one  step  farther  and  affirm  that 
this  birth,  this  new  beginning  in  time,  was  a  part  of  the  experience  of  one 
who  had  had  an  exalted  career  in  eternity. 

But  that  the  coming  into  the  world  of  the  preexistent  one  did  not  involve 
mysterious  and  radical  change  in  condition,  state,  and  relationship,  the 
assumption  of  a  nature  not  hitherto  possessed,  and  of  limitations  not  hitherto 
undergone,  totally  ignores  the  Scriptural  teaching  on  the  humiliation  of 
Christ,  and  logically  involves  a  denial  of  reality  of  the  Incarnation  alto- 
gether. A  complete  doctrine  of  the  Incarnation  is  that  at  the  moment  of 
conception  a  divinely  created  human  nature  began  to  be  and  was  united  to 
the  eternal  Christ  by  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  advent  of  Jesus 
Christ  means,  therefore,  the  manifestation  of  a  specially  created  humanity 
in  vital  union  with  the  Christ,  who  had  consented  to  yield  Himself  to  the 
same  limitations  even  to  the  extent  of  being  born  in  obedience  to  the  same 
creative  act.1 

It  was  in  this  sense  that  we  may  broadly  affirm  that  Christ  was  born  at 
Bethlehem,  meaning  thereby  not  as  some  have  thought,  that  Jesus  was  thus 
born  Who  afterwards  became  the  Christ.  The  very  Christ  was  actually  born 
of  Mary.     This  is  the  essence  of  the  Christmas  message. 

Historically,  however,  we  are  probably  not  to  suppose  that  the  whole  of 
this  majestic  truth  was  revealed  to  the  disciples  at  once.  In  all  probability, 
they  rose  gradually  to  the  lofty  faith  that  Jesus  was  not  only  a  divinely 
created  man,  but  also  the  Incarnation  of  the  eternal  Son  of  the  Father. 

Viewed  thus,  there  is  no  contradiction  nor  even  inconsistency  in  these  two 
modes  of  Christological  interpretation.  They  lay  hold  of  two  aspects  of 
one  and  the  same  historic  act,  and  are  two  parts  of  one  majestic  conception. 

The  true  implication  of  the  twofold  truth  is  that  Christ's  manhood  was 
peculiarly  divine  in  that  it  was  a  special  creation  of  God,  and  that  His  deity 
had  become  human  in  that  He  was,  even  through  the  process  of  conception 
and  birth,  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God. 
1  See  Stevens  :  Johannine  Theol.,  p.  95,  also  Godet,  Comm.  on  John,  ad.  loc. 
23 


NOTE  F 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

I.  Lives  of  Christ. 

A.  The  Negative  Position  is  supported  in  the  following  works : — 
Keim  :  Life  of  Jesus  of  Nazara  (Eng.  Tr.,  Williams  and  Norgate,  2nd 

edition). 
Beyschlag :  Leben  Jesu,  Vol  I. 

O.  Holtzmann:  Life  of  Jesus  (Eng.  Tr.,  A.  and  C.  Black,  1904). 
Strauss  :  Life  of  Jesus.      (Eng.  Tr.  by  Marian  Evans.) 

B.  The  Traditional  Position  is  advocated  by 

Weiss:  Life  of  Jesus  (Eng.  Tr.,  T.  and  T.  Clark,  1S83). 

This  is  both  learned  and  logical.     The  major  contentions  of  this 
book  have  never  been  successfully  met. 
Lange  :  Life  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  (Eng.  Tr.  by  Taylor  and  Ryland, 

Smith,  English  &  Co.,  Phila.). 
Sanday:  Outlines  of  Life  of  Christ  (Scribner's,  reprinted  from  H.B.D.). 
The  other  standard  lives  of  Christ  in  English,  especially  Andrews 
for  chronology,  Edersheim  for  Jewish  characteristics,  etc. 

II.  Commentaries  and  Introductions. 

A.  Negative. 

H.  J.  Holtzmann  :  Synoptischen  Evangelien.  Ihr  Ursprung  und 
Geschichtlichen  Charakter,  sees.  12  and  13,  and  various  German 
commentaries,  such  as  Meyer,  De  Wette,  Reuss,  etc. 

B.  The  Traditional  Position  has  been  advocated  by 

Godet :   Commentary  on  Luke's  Gospel.      (American  Standard    Edi- 
tion, 1 881,  F.  and  W.) 
Plummer:   Com.  on  Luke.      (International  Critical  Commentaries.) 
This  work  is  by  far  the  most  satisfactory  study  of  the  third  Gospel. 
It  is  scholarly,  sane,  and  moderate. 
Weiss  (B. ):  Introduction  to  New  Testament  (Eng.  Tr.,  two  vols.,  Funk 

and  Wagnalls). 
Salmon:    Introduction  to  N.  T.  (4th  edition,  Murray,  1889). 
Zahn:    Einleitung,  etc.  (Eng.  translation  about  to  be  issued  by  Charles 
Scribner's  Sons). 

This  is  the  most  learned  work  on  the  conservative  side  of  the  New 
Testament  controversy. 
354 


AUTHOR'S  NOTES  355 

For  an  able  and  succinct  discussion  of  the  Infancy  narratives,  espe- 
cially the  genealogies,  see  Ebrard  (J.  H.) :  Gospel  History 
(Eng.  Tr.  )  Div.  II.,  pp.  149  f. 

III.  Monographs  on  Virgin  Birth. 

A.  Negative. 

Soltau  W.:  Birth  of  Jesus  Christ  (A.  and  C.  Black,  1903). 

Lobstein  P.:  Virgin  Birth  of  Christ  (Putnam,  1903). 

Sydow:  Die  Wunderbare  Geburt  Jesu  (Berlin,  1873). 

Hillmann  :  Die  Kindheitgeschichte  Jesu  nach  Lukas  (Jahrbucher  fur 

protestantische  Theologie,  1891,  pp.  192-261). 
Usener:  Religionsgeschichte  Untersuchungen,  Band  I  (Bonn,  1899). 
Rohrbach  :  Geboren  von  der  Jungfrau  (Berlin,  1898). 

B.  Conservative. 

Steinmeyer:  Die  Geschichte  der  Geburt  des  Herrn,  U.  S.  W. ,  1 873. 
Nebe  :  Die  Kindheitsgeschichte  des  Herrn  nach  Mathaiis  und  Lukas, 

l893- 

Berthout  (A.)  :  La  naissance  miraculeuse,  etc.  (papers  published  in 
author's  posthumous  Conferences  Apologetiques,  Paris,  1900). 

Resch :  Das  Kindheits  Evangelium  ( Gebhardt-Harnack  Texten). 

Gore:  Dissertations  on  subjects  connected  with  the  Incarnation, 
Diss.  I. 

Ramsay:  Was  Christ  born  at  Bethlehem?  Putnam,  1898.  (Inci- 
dental support.) 

IV.  The  Credal  Controversy. 

A.  Negative. 

Harnack  :  The  Apostles'  Creed,  1892. 

Herrmann:  Worum  handelt  an  sich  im  Streit  um  das  Apostolicum, 

Leipzig,   1893. 
Bornemann  :  Der  Streit  um  das  Apostolicum,  Leipzig,  1893. 
Harnack  :  History  of  Dogma,  Vol.  I. 
Holtzmann :  Lehrbuch   der    neues  testamentlichen  Theologie,    1S97, 

vol.  i,  pp.  409  seq. 

B.  Conservative. 

Wohlenburg  :  Empfangen  von  Heiligen  Geist,  u.  s.  w.,  Leipzig,  1S93. 
Haussleiter  :  Zur  Vorgeschichte  des  Apostolischen  Glaubens  bekennt- 

niss,  Miinchen,  1893. 
Cremer :  Zum  Kampf  um  das  Apostolicum. 
Zahn  (Th.)  :  Das  Apostolische  Symbolum  (Erlangen  und  Leipzig). 

The  student  who  does  not  read  German  may  make  himself  thor- 
oughly conversant  with  the  merits  of  this  controversy  by  reading 
the  following  books  : — 
Harnack:  The  Apostles'  Creed  (Eng.  Tr.). 
Swete  :  The  Apostles'  Creed  (C.  J.  Clay  &  Son,  1894). 


356  AUTHOR'S  NOTES 

Zahn :  The  Articles  of  the  Apostles'  Creed  (Eng.  Tr.,  Hodder  and 
S  tough  ton,  1889). 

McGiffert :  The  Apostles'  Creed,  etc.,  Scribner's,  1902. 

Swete  answers  Harnack,  and  does  it  with  great  effectiveness  as  will  be 
seen  by  reading  the  two  books  and  then  comparing  them  with  Prof. 
McGiffert' s  later  work.  The  latter  writer  by  no  means  holds  with 
all  the  contentions  of  Harnack.  A  popular  and  interesting  discus- 
sion of  the  subject  is  Stimson's  Apostles'  Creed  (Pilgrim  Press, 
1898).  In  the  investigation  of  the  antiquity  of  the  Creed,  the 
student  should  give  careful  heed  to  the  evidence  supplied  by  the 
recovered  Apology  of  Aristides  translated  and  edited  by  J.  Ren- 
dell  Harris  (in  Studies  and  Texts,  edited  by  J.  A.  Robinson,  Cam. 
Un.  Press).  Cf.  new  vol.  Ante-Nicene  Fathers  (T.  and  T.  Clark, 
1897)  pp.  259  seq.  On  the  origin  of  the  New  Testament  in 
addition  to  books  already  cited :  The  Study  of  the  Gospels  by  J. 
A.  Robinson  (Longmans,  1902),  and  Stanton's  Gospels  as 
Historical  Documents,  Pt.  I  (Un.  Cam.  Press,  1903),  will  be  found 
particularly  useful. 

V.  The  Census  Question. 

The  strongest  statement  of  the  case  against  Luke  is  made  by 
Schurer  (Jewish  People  in  the  Time  of  Jesus  Christ,  En.  Tr. 
from  2d  Ger.  Ed.)  whose  work  is  the  thesaurus  of  German 
literature  on  both  sides  of  the  question.  Ramsay's  argument  in 
"  Was  Christ  born  at  Bethlehem?  "  was  constructed  with  especial 
reference  to  Schurer.  The  latter  in  the  latest  edition  of  his  work, 
the  first  volume  of  which  was  issued  in  1 901,  makes  rejoinder  to 
Ramsay. 

VI.  Heathen  Influence. 

In  addition  to  works  cited  in  the  text,  Cheyne's  earlier  work,  Jewish 
Rel.  Life  after  the  Exile  (Putnam,  1S98)  is  a  good  corrective  to 
his  later  vagaries  on  this  subject,  see  especially  pp.  216-261. 
The  following   special  articles  in  English  and  American  Reviews 
should  be  consulted  : — 

Birth  and  Infancy  of  Christ.     Kitto's  Mag Vol.  12,  p.  351 

Ibid "     13,  p.  420 

Gregory   Nazianzen   on   Birth   and   Infancy   of  Christ. 

Meth.  Mag "    55,  p.  844 

A.  P.  Peabody  in  Unitarian  R "       9,  p.  226 

Wieseler's  Chronology.     Bibliotheca  Sacra "  3,  p.  166,  653 

Chronology  of  Christ's  Birth.  Bibliotheca  Sacra  ...  "  27,  p.  290 
Birthplace  and  Chronology.  Methodist  Quarterly  ..."  32,  p.  216 
Life  of  Jesus  and  Legends  of  Buddha.     Brit,  and  For. 

Ev.  Rev "     31,  p.  728 


AUTHOR'S  NOTES  357 

Jesus  at  12  years  old.    Sunday  Mag Vol.  18,  p.  130 

Birth  of  Christ.     Was  it  Supernatural?  (Cook)  One  day     "       6,  p.  443 

Flight  into  Egypt  (van  Dyke).     Harper "       80,  p.  44 

Christ  prior  to  His  Public  Ministry  (Godet).     Christ.  Lit.     "        13,  p.  92 
Miraculous    Conception   and    Virgin     Birth   of    Christ 

(Ropes)  Andover  R "     19,  p.  695 

Miraculous  Birth  (Terry)  Meth.  R "     61,  p.  891 

Legendary  Story  of  Childhood  (Potter)  New  World   .    .     "       8,  p.  645 
Liberal  Movement  in  Church  of  Eng.   (  J.  Verschoyle). 

Contem.  Rev "     84,  p.  233 

Magi  and  Their  Quest.     Chautauquan "  36,  p.  299  seq. 

Ancestry  and  Parentage.     Bib.  World "     26,  p.  195 

Philo's  Doctrine  of  the  Divine  Father  and  Virgin  Mother. 

Am.  Journ.  of  Theol "      9,  p.  518 

Gospel  Stories  of  the  Virgin  Birth.     Independent  ...     "  55,  p.  3036 
Supernatural  Birth  of  Jesus.     Am.  Journ.  of  Theol.  .    .     "   10,  p.  1-30 
Birth  of  Christ.    (W.  S.  Steele.)    Meth.  R.,  Jan.,  1892. 
New  Testament  Accounts  of  the  Birth  of  Christ.  (Machen.) 

Two  Articles.  Princeton  Rev.  Oct.,  1905,  Jan.,  1906. 
St.  Luke  and  the  Incarnation.     Expos.   Times  ....     "     12,  p.  222 

In  Support  of  Ramsay.     Ibid "     14,  p.  296 

Marriage  of  Joseph  and  Mary "       5,  p.  127 

Divine  Activity  in  Birth  of  Christ "       5,  p.  132 

Virgin  Birth  of  our  Lord.  Christian  World  Pulpit.  Feb.,  4, 

1903. 
Historical  Crit.  and    Dogma  of  Virgin   Birth.     C.  A. 

Briggs,  N.  A.  Review,  June,  1906. 

Additional  remarks : — 

Of  the  above  articles,  three  deserve  especial  mention  :  That  by  Ropes  for 
its  able  grasp  of  the  general  significance  of  the  subject ;  that  by  Steele  for 
its  treatment  of  the  question  concerning  the  prophecies  ;  that  by  Machen 
for  its  searching  treatment  of  minute  and  difficult  textual  questions. 

For  the  discussion  of  the  related  problems  of  Christian  theology  and  his- 
tory, nothing  could  be  more  satisfactory  than  the  volume  of  Cambridge 
Theological  Essays  (Macmillan  and  Co.).  For  a  study  of  the  general 
implications  of  the  so-called  liberal  position  on  this  and  other  themes,  the 
clearest  statement  is  to  be  found  in  Gardner :  Hist.  View  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, A.  and  C.  Black.  The  student  should  make  constant  use  of  the 
articles  in  the  Hastings  Bib.  Diet,  to  which  frequent  references  have  been 
made. 

For  the  conservative  trend  of  recent  criticism  see  new  edition  Hauck- 
Hertzog,  Real-encyclopaedia:  Article,  "Jesus  Christ"  by  ZSchler. 


INDEX 


Abraham,  promise  to,  38,  4°-43> 
75-  76. 

Abbott,  Dr.  Lyman,  272. 

Ahaz  and  the  Messiah,   37. 

Alford,  Dean,   125. 

Ambrose,  saying  of,  159. 

Amenhotep  III.,  birth  according 
to  legend,  1 70  ;  birth  according 
to  fact,  172-3. 

Angelology,  of  Luke  189  ;  of 
Matthew,    326. 

Angels,  agency  of,    255,   256  n. 

Antinomies  in  the  Gospels,  251 
seq. ;  in  Infancy  Narratives, 
254  ;  problem  of,  255,  256  note. 

Antioch,  synod  of,  statement, 
284  note. 

Antiochus  Epiphanes,  persecu- 
tion of,  144. 

Apocalyptic  (Jewish),  Messianic 
expectations  of,  305. 

Apocryphal  Gospels,  Keim's  use 
of,  59,  62,  63,  64  ;  character 
of,  138. 

Apostles'  Creed,  origin  of,  349. 

Aramaic,    136. 

Archelaus,   2. 

Astrology,  Matthew's  attitude  to- 
ward, 128. 

Augustus  (Emperor),  340. 

Babylonian  myths,  177-180. 


Bacon,  B.  W.,  207,  216,  329. 

Badham,  288. 

Baptism  of  Christ,  importance  of, 
308  ;  and  His  Messianic  con- 
sciousness, 56,  note  at  end  of 
chap,  iv,  258. 

Bartlet,  J.   V.,  327. 

Beecher,  Dr.  W.  J.,  32,  33,  38, 
40,  41,  42,  43,  50,  51,  53,  54, 
69,  265. 

Benecke,  P.  V.  M.,  189. 

Berthout,  A.,  358. 

Best,  I.  O.,  153-4. 

Bethlehem,  11,  17,  27,  28,  29,  52, 
53,  60,  87,  89,  128,  194,  195, 
219,  222. 

Beyschlag,  263,  291,  298,  354. 

Birth  of  Christ,  importance  of,  12; 
natural,  alleged  tradition  of,  6, 
200-201;  twofold  significance 
of,  203;  contemporary  interest 
in,  345;    according   to    Luke, 

334- 

Bissell,  E.  C,  145. 

Bornemann,  355. 

Bossuet  (Bp.),  299. 

Breasted,  J.  H.,  174. 

Briggs,  Dr.  C.  A.,  92;  quoted, 
96-100;  on  conception  of 
Christ  131  note  4;  229-233, 
247    note    2;    309    note,    323, 

329.  357- 

359 


360 


INDEX 


Bruce,  A.  B.,  i8,  42,  45,  47,  60, 
239,  244,  248,  252. 

Bruckner,  M.,  234. 

Brugsch,   174. 

Buddhism, birth  stories  of,  162  seq. 

Buddhist  legends  and  Chris- 
tianity, 165. 

Bushnell,  Dr.   H.,  245. 

Cambridge  Theological  Essays, 

357- 
Census  question,  the,  330  seq. 
Cerinthus,  theory  of,  230,   308. 
Chase,    F.   H.,  233-4,  319,  325, 

329.  332. 

Cheyne,  T.  K.,  144,  171,  175 
seq.,  185,  287-291,  293,  296, 
299,  301,  302,  356. 

Christ,  greatness  of,  239  seq. ; 
mystery  of,  240;  as  leader,  169, 
241;  as  teacher,  244;  as  ideal, 
244-5 "-  self-consciousness  of, 
246;  as  mediator,  246;  descrip- 
tion of,  in  Gospels,  248  seq. ; 
and  John  the  Baptist,  260  seq. ; 
significance  of,  in  Christianity, 
156. 

Christianity,  originality  of,  157; 
not  a  syncretism,  306-7. 

Christmas  message,  the,  10,  353. 

Christology,  involved  in  discus- 
sion, 10,  297. 

Chrysostom,  189. 

Conrady,  298. 

Conservatism  of  Jews,  61. 

Controversies  in  early  church, 
114. 

Conybeare,  F.  C,  149. 

Corrsen,  308. 


Cremer,  H.,  355. 
Curtiss,  S.  I.,  150. 

David  (King),  1,  33,  38,  41,  42, 
43-  53.  75-  76,  87,  205,  207, 
208,  210,  214. 

Davidic  origin  of  Jesus,  impor- 
tance of,  in  eyes  of  Jews,  217; 
spiritual  meaning  of,  218. 

Davidson,  189. 

Dawson,  J.  W.,  265. 

Death  of  Christ,  relation  of,  to 
Messianic  problem,  1 10  seq. 

Deity  of  Christ,  basis  of  belief 
in,  279. 

Denney,  J.,  109. 

Divine  and  human  in  mythology 
and  Christianity,  307. 

Dogma,  alleged  Christological, 
301  seq. 

Dorner,  J.  A.,  279  seq. 

Du  Bose,  W.  P.,  288. 

Ebionites,  13-15,  217;  Gospel 
of,  319-320. 

Ebrard,  J.  H.,  355. 

Edersheim,  Alfred,  23,  36,  50, 
53,  133,  145,  317-320. 

Edmunds,  A.  J.,  161  note. 

Egypt,  flight  into,  4,  17,  26,  151; 
birth  legends  of,  169  seq.;  en- 
rollments in,  336  seq. 

Elkesaites,  184. 

Essenes,  relation  to  Jews,  146; 
unorthodox,  145;  system  of, 
148-9. 

Eusebius,  284. 

Facts,  sacredness  of,  296. 


INDEX 


361 


Fairbairn,  A.    M.,   48,   95,    140, 
157,    230,  240,  244,  256,  306. 
Farrar,  F.  W.,  122,  123,  317. 
Fiske,  Jno.,  155,  271. 
Forrest,  D.  W.,  244,  245. 
Fremantle,  W.  H.,  271,  290. 

Gabriel,   significance    of  name, 

190. 
Gardner,  Prof.   P.,   82  seq.,  290, 

293,  357- 

Genealogies,  difficulties  in,  12 
seq. ;  origin  of,  according  to 
Lobstein,  115;  secondary  im- 
portance of,  206;  of  Matthew 
and  Luke,  not  the  same,  208; 
relation  to  birth  of  Christ,  6; 
significance  of,  96. 

Genesis,  25. 

Gesenius,  68. 

Gloag,  P.  G.,  73,  222,  223. 

Gnostics  and  Gnosticism,  13,  3. 

Godet,  F.,  210,  213,  218,  219, 
285,  297,  353,  354. 

Gore,  Bp.  C,  81,  82,  112,  135, 
181,  272,  341,  350,  355,  357. 

Gospels,  circumstances  of  origin, 
114. 

Gotama,  166,  167,  168. 

Grieve,  Rev.  Alex.,  191. 

Gunkel,  128,  301. 

Haecker,  300;  criticised,  304. 
Haeckel,  E.,  272. 
Hamack,   A.,    21,    34,    72,    143, 
168,  252,   291,  300,   301,  355. 
Harris,  J.  R.,  356. 
Hartland,  Sidney,  152. 
Haussleiter,  355. 


Heathen  influence  in  Infancy 
Narratives,  logical  implications 
of,  149;  denied  by  Lobstein, 
1 12. 

Heathen  myths,  significance  of, 
156;  moral  character  of,  184-5; 
and  Dan.  vii.,  13,  304;  and 
New  Testament,  304. 

Heathenism,  contact  of  Jews 
with,  181;  and  Christianity, 
amalgamation  of,  184-5. 

Hellenism  among  Jews,  144  seq. 

Herod  (1st),  26;  character  of, 
121-3,  124,  145;  "  the  King," 
significance  of  phrase,  326, 
335-8;  true  portrait  of,  in  In. 
sect.,  125,  220,  221,  222,  339. 

Herrmann,  355. 

Hillmann,  355. 

"Historic  phenomena"  and 
Christianity,  296  seq. 

History,  importance  of,  48,  49, 
1 20,  294  seq. ;  philosophy  of, 
in  N.  T.,  44,  45,  51;  in  light 
of  after  events,  1 30. 

Holtzmann,  H.  J.,  354,  355. 

Holtzmann,  O.,  I  note,  4,  209 
seq.,  300,  331,  343,  354. 

Hoit,  F.  J.  A.,  316. 

Huxley,  T.  H.,  272,  294. 

Ignatius,  Epistles  of,  date,  77, 
78;  testimony,  78,  79. 

Immanuel,  use  of  term,  36. 

Incarnation,  place  of,  in  Ethnic 
faith,  153  seq.;  longing  for, 
156;  and  Birth  of  Christ,  295, 
351;  a  derivative  conception, 
329- 


362 


INDEX 


Infancy  Narratives,  arguments 
against,  1-7;  date  of,  accd.  to 
Keim,  58,  59,61;  according  to 
Soltau,  89;  importance  of,  8- 
11,  13,  14,  17;  source  of,  accd. 
to  Briggs,  97  seq. ;  Jewish- 
Christian,  61,  71,  72,  150;  re- 
lation to  Matthew' s  Gospel,  71, 
72;  no  evidence  for  late  date, 
74;  source  of  Luke's,  85;  his- 
torical value,  99,  100;  poetical, 
not  unhistorical,  119;  claim  to 
historicity,  119,  120;  subjec- 
tive element  in,  131;  consist- 
ency of,  132  seq.,  225;  super- 
natural in,  137  seq.;  Mess, 
ideas  of,  136;  truthful  descrip- 
tions of,  138;  delicacy  of,  139; 
textual  standing,  312;  internal 
harmony  of,  206;  Luke's,  220; 
Matthew's,  221  ;  unity  with 
rest  of  Gospel,  256,  7;  and 
Tubingen  hypothesis,  289; 
genuine  Jewish  feeling  of,  304; 
and  heathen  myths,  307. 

Inspiration,  8. 

Interpolation,  Keim's  use  of  un- 
tenable, 65,  66. 

Interpolator,  Keim's  description 
of,  66,  67. 

Jackson,  A.  V.  W.,  307. 

James,  341. 

Jechoniah,  210. 

Jeremiah,    24. 

Jerusalem,  128,  223;  church  of, 

81-82. 
Jesus,    self-consciousness   of,  13; 

new  creation,  262. 


John,  Apostle,  60;  attitude  to  vir- 
gin birth,  201,  231,  316-17; 
attitude  to  Davidic  origin  of 
Jesus,  211;  Gospel  of,  96. 

John  the  Baptist,  216. 

Jolley,  222,  314,  315  seq.,  316, 
317,  319,  320. 

Joseph  (of  Nazareth),  2,  4,  6,  7, 
10,  12,  134,  196,  197,  202, 
203,  204,  213,  214,  215,   328, 

329- 
Joseph  and  Mary,  marriage  of, 

12,  204;  possibly  akin,  214. 
Judas,   death,   accd.  to  Mt.  and 

Lk.,  321. 
Justin  Martyr,  32,    79,  80,    189, 

216,  338,  351. 

Keim,  4.  27,  55  seq.,  62,  139, 
258,  285,  288,  291,  354;  the- 
ory of,  untenable,  61,  81. 

Kent,  C.  F.,  144,  180,  190. 

Kingdom  of  God,  44. 

Knowling,  J.    R.,  235,   237,  324. 

Kurtz,  Prof.,  183. 

Lange,  J.  P.,  9,  14-16,  196,  202, 

207,  213,  225,  231,  354. 

Lessing  (quoted  by  Briggs),  248. 

Lewes,  G.  H.,  299. 

Lightfoot,  Bp.,  72,  189. 

Lobstein,  6,  10,  81,  102,  226, 
277,  287,  288,  291,  297;  the- 
ory criticised,  104  seq. ;  self- 
contradictory,  104;  contradicts 
early  Ch.  history,  108  ;  in- 
herently impossible,    112  seq. ; 

356. 
Luke,   and    Keim's  interpolator, 


INDEX 


363 


66;  narrative  of,  origin,  315, 
319,  320,  321,  322  seq. ;  visit 
to  Jerusalem,  321,  325;  use  of 
virgin  b.,  324;  and  Paul,  334; 
truth  and  poetry  in  his  narra- 
tive, 129;  truthfulness  of  de- 
scriptions, 138. 
Machen,   J.   G.,    117,    312,   342, 

357- 

Magi,  origin  of,  4,  70,  88,  93, 
219,  326,  330;  historical  ar.  for, 
125-129;  character  of  account, 
188. 

Marcion,  351. 

Martensen,  Bp.  H.,  285  note. 

Martineau,  J.,  46-48. 

Mark,  Gospel  of,  omission  of  Inf. 
Narr.  from  explained,  96;  ori- 
gin of,  318. 

Mary,  mother  of  Jesus,  3,  7,  1 33, 
196,  197,  212;  Messianism  of, 
200,  202,  203;  character  of, 
264  seq. 

Mason,  A.  J.,  160,  168. 

Maspero,  144. 

Mathews,  S.,  49  n.,  50  n.,  95, 
341  n. ;  Messianic  hope  in  N. 
T.  discussed,  344  seq. 

Matthew,  Evan.,  understanding 
of  Jewish  feeling,  11 5-1 17. 

Matthew,  Gospel  of,  O.  T.  in, 
22  seq.  ;  unity  of,  57,  71, 
204  ;  purpose  of,  204  ;  prim, 
element  in  In.  sect.,  326;  use 
of  Hebrew  and  Sept.  in,  58 
seq. 

McGiffert,  349,  353. 

Messiah,  43-52;  Jesus  certified 
as,  151,  274,  275,  277. 


Messiahship  of  Jesus,  grounds  of 
belief  in,  34;  difficulty  of  be- 
lief in,    no;    continuous,  309. 

Messianic  con.  of  Jesus,  begin- 
ning of,  259;  ideal,  Jesus' 
inter,  of,  46;  hope,  50,  52;  not 
definite  in  details,  302  seq. ; 
promise,  40,  41,  42;  Jesus  be- 
lieved in,  45;  secret,  330^^.; 
texts,  26,  30,  50. 

Messianism  in  N.  T. ,  344  seq. ; 
and  birth  of  Christ,  345;  dis- 
ciples,  345. 

Meyer,  2,  119. 

Micah,  27. 

Milligan,  W.,  182. 

Miracles,  relation  of  to  Gospel 
narr.,  225,  250. 

Miraculous  and  moral  element 
in  Gospels,  292;  births  of 
heathenism,  various,  302. 

Moffatt,  J.,  66,  72. 

Mohammed,  secret  of  his  power, 

243- 
Mommsen,  Th.,  339. 
Mozley,  J.  B.,  243. 

Nash,  H.  S.,    350. 

Nathanael,  question  of,  28. 

Nazarene,  35. 

Nazareth,  2,  4,  12,  57,  87,  194, 
195,  199,  223,  234;  residence 
of  Joseph  and  Mary  in,   313, 

343-  346. 
Neander,  A.,  112,  194. 
Nebe,  355. 
New  Testament,  In.  Narr.  in,  3; 

credit  involved  in  discussion, 

18,  20,  291,  207. 


364 


INDEX 


Old  Testament,  4.  21,  22,  40, 42, 

58,  70;  in  the  New,  23. 
Orr,  J.,  245. 
Ottley,  R.  L.,  159. 

Paul,  Apostle,  138;  relationship 
with  Luke,  important,  231 ;  rela- 
tion to  facts  of  Christ's  life,  235 
seq. ;  Christian  experience  of, 
235;  biographical  material  in 
writings,    236;    use   of  words, 

237. 

Peabody,  A.  P.,  356. 

Peter,  Apostle,  Memoirs  of,  318. 

Peyton,  W.  W.,  271. 

Pharaohs,  worship  of,  171. 

Philo,  system  of,  146. 

Primitive  Gospel,  In.  Narr.  not 
in,  310;  character  of,  31  seq. 

Prophetic  passages  in  Mt.  ana- 
lyzed, 327  seq. 

Rachel,  weeping  of,  24,  25,  35. 

Ramah,   265,  266. 

Ramsay,  W.  M.,  72,  136,  140, 
141,  196,  231,  232,  233  seq., 
354-356;  ar.  discussed,  340^^. 

Rappoport,  144. 

Rawlinson,   H.,  174. 

Resch,  355. 

Resurrection  of  Christ,  impor- 
tance of,  228;  narrative  of,  250; 
place  in  thought  of  disciples, 
347;  connection  with  question 
of  birth,  292. 

Reitzenstein,  298. 

Reynolds,  H.  R.,  260. 

Rhees,  Dr.  R.,  in. 

Riggs,  Dr.  J.  S.,  122,  144,  180. 


Ripon,  Bp.  of,  291. 

Rohrbach,  355. 

Ryle  (and  James),  yy. 

Sabatier,  P.  (quoted  by  Lob- 
stein),   284. 

Salmon,  66,  354. 

Salvation,  conception  of,  in  Mt.'s 
Narr.  of  In.,  325. 

Sanday  W.,   85,    153,   290,  324, 

354- 

Sanday  and  Headlam  (Com.  on 
Romans),  237. 

Sargon  (of  Agade),  myth  of,  299. 

Sayce,  A.  H.,  169,  172,  173,  185, 
321. 

Schliermacher,  249,  288. 

Schmiedel,  211,  293,  298,  342. 

Schiirer,  E.,  50,  144,  356. 

Scrymgeour,  W. ,  214. 

Servant  (title  of  Messiah),  43. 

Shepherds,  visit  of,  133. 

Simcox,  312. 

Simeon,  address  of,  75,  76. 

Smith,  G.  A.,  36,  41,  130. 

Soltau,  W. ,  18,  S6  seq.;  theory 
stated,  86-89;  criticized,  89 
seq. ;  untenable,  94,  151,  202, 
229,    274,  277,  287,  291,  298, 

355- 
Son  of  God,  43,  303  seq.,  323. 
Son  of  Man,  303  seq. 
Songs  in   Luke,   significance  of, 

151. 
Sons     of     Promise    and   Virgin 

Birth,  305. 
Spirit,  use  of,  in  Lk.'s  In.  Narr., 

322;  in  Mt.'s,  326;  relation  of, 

to  Jesus,  56. 


INDEX 


365 


Stalker,  J.,  244. 

Star  of    Magi,    note   at   end   of 

Chap.  vi. 
Steele,  W.  S.,  305,  332. 
Steinmeyer,  355. 
Stevens,  G.  B.,  232,  235,  353. 
Stimson,  H.  B.,  356. 
Storm,  Miracle  of  calming,  252. 
Strauss,  47  n.,  60  n.,   202,   288, 

291,  354- 
Sydow,  355. 
Syncretism,    Christianity  not  a, 

3°5- 

Tammuz  (Istar),  cult  of,  184. 
Tatian,  222. 
Tertullian,  351. 
Thayer,  J.  H.,  232. 
Theology  and  Life,  295. 
Theophilus,  189. 
Tholuck,  A.,  297. 
Transfiguration,  252. 
Trench,  R.  C.,248. 
Triumphal  entry,  54. 
Tubingen  theory,  relation  of,  to 
In.  Narr.,  289. 

Universalism,  Christian,  not  in 

Mt.'s  In.  Narr.,  41. 
Usener,  152,  355. 

Van  Dyke,  H.,  156,  272. 

Van  Oosterzee,  249. 

Virgin  Birth,  congruous  with  rest 
of  Gospel,  250;  and  Humanity 
of  Christ,  273;  and  human  life, 
275;  doctrinal  significance  of, 
279  seq.,   308  seg.,  347;  place 


in  history  of  doctrine,  281  seq.; 
and  Incarnation,  274,  351;  and 
preexistence,  351-3;  negative 
criticism  on,  311;  no  motive 
for  invention,  347;  relation  to 
other  biographical  facts,  347; 
date  of  belief  in,  81,  82,  350; 
and  early  preaching  of  disci- 
ples, 350;  and  Nicene  Creed, 
284;  .religious  sig.  of,  266; 
scientific  aspects  of,  270  seq., 
271  n. ;  and  uniqueness  of  Jesus, 
261;  silence  of  Jesus  on,  195; 
unknown  in  lifetime  of  Jesus, 
197;  attitude  of  John  and  Paul 
to,  201. 

Virgin  Births,  unknown  to  hea- 
thenism, 188. 

Von  Hligel  (quoted  by  Cheyne), 
296. 

Vos,  Geerhardus,  234. 

Weiss,  B.,  31,  196-203,  209, 
297,    312,    quoted    313,    314, 

327.  353-  354- 
Wilkinson,  184,  313,  319. 
Wohlenburg,  355. 
Woods,  F.  H.,  66,  69. 
Woman,  place  in  history  of  race, 

264;  in  Bible,  264  seq. 
Worcester,  Bp.  of,  290. 
Word,  the,  16. 
Wright,  A.,  301,  317,  318,   319, 

321,  325,  327. 

Zahn,  Th.,  117,  354.  355.  356. 
Zockler,  357. 


. — *-"~*"j^ 

1        w\ 

r    1 

■ 


<  I 


■ 


-r.W)       ..  1 1 


H 


■ 


^^^^H 


■ 


.-•,,,'■•'        jus 

■ 


E89 


■ :  tf 


^^H 


■  .;v.  :#••:;££&-«?;$ 


